Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Public Conveniences (Hygiene)

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to empower him to see that local authorities require a high standard of hygiene in public conveniences.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) on 8th June, and by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) on 9th June. My right hon. Friend does not think legislation is required.

Mr. Pounder: I am aware of the Answers which my hon. Friend gave to those hon. Members, but is he not aware that although a very high standard of hygiene is maintained by some local authorities in conveniences under their control, this standard is certainly not uniform and that a recent survey showed that in some areas less than one-third of the conveniences in those areas were above a reasonable standard and that less than half had wash basins? In

view of the vital importance of maintaining a high standard of public hygiene, is not my right hon. Friend prepared to look at the matter again?

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. I am absolutely convinced that it is essentially a matter both for local administration and local enforcement. As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend has undertaken to issue advice on the matter, and I am quite certain that the pressure of public opinion on local authorities will be much more effective than legislation, which would be very difficult indeed to enforce.

Somerset River Board

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why there is no Dorset representative on the new Somerset River Board, in view of the fact that a large area of Dorset is included in the new authority's area.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Dorset will contribute only 2 per cent. of the Somerset river authority's precepted income; the Act requires local authority members to be allocated having regard to rateable resources: and that is why Dorset has no member on this authority.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that there are to be no fewer than 27 members on this new authority and that the whole of one Dorset U.D.C., the whole of an R.D.C. and part of another R.D.C. are all in the area of this board? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some resentment caused by the feeling that their future is being determined and that they are having no control over it?

Sir K. Joseph: The Act lays down that local authority members, who are to form the majority on the board, shall be elected according to rateable resources. Dorset has five members on the Avon and Dorset river authority.

West Dorset Water Board (Water Rate)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs by how


much the water rate in the area of the West Dorset Water Board exceeds or is less than the average.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to relate the water rate in the West Dorset Water Board's area to a national average; an average could not be calculated from the information which he receives.

Mr. Digby: Is not my hon. Friend aware that it is rather high, making all allowances for very special problems in that area, and, that there is a certain amount of local disquiet about it?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, I appreciate that the charges in the West Dorset Water Board's area are high, but, as my hon. Friend knows, this is largely due to the very high capital investment which has been necessary. My hon. Friend will also be aware that my right hon. Friend has recently made an Order for the extension of the area and for the inclusion of a number of other water undertaking authorities which, in the long run, will have the effect of cheapening the water supply in the whole of the area.

Property Development (Trees)

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied that the present legislation which prohibits the felling of trees in cases of property development is adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. Local planning authorities can control felling by means of a tree preservation order under Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. They can also control development to ensure that it does not necessitate felling trees it is desired to preserve.

Mr. Loughlin: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there seems to be some weakness in the present position, because there has been a multiplicity of cases where trees have been felled against the orders made by local planning authorities and then, when the developers have been prosecuted—I quote a case in Gloucester recently—the fines which have been imposed have been infinitesimal, even farcical, and in the Gloucester case, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the developer was fined £1

after defying the local planning authority.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, I am aware of that case. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the magistrates who tried it. Whatever legislative alterations were made, there would have to be a court to enforce the order, and it would be quite wrong for a Minister to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court.

Unmade Roads

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will seek power to enable him to take the initiative in solving the problem of unmade roads in local authority areas.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. This is essentially a local problem which the local authorities are best placed to deal with. My right hon. Friend thinks the initiative should remain with them.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the present position, but in some areas this is a really serious problem. May I quote the Forest of Dean, where there is an enormous number of unmade roads, normally referred to as "forest tracks", and where by the nature of the area it becomes impossible for people to obtain access to their homes? Will the hon. Gentleman inquire of the Gloucester County Council why nothing has been done in relation to the Edge Hill site as well?

Mr. Corfield: I am always willing to make inquiries, but I am absolutely certain that this is basically a question of priorities, and local priorities at that, and it must be for the Gloucester County Council as highway authority to decide those priorities in any particular part of the county.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister have a very close look at this, because I can assure him that many hundreds of my constituents are suffering under intolerable conditions, particularly in the winter, because of the failure of the Gloucester County Council to take action in this matter?

National Parks (Derelict Land)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much


derelict land there is in the National Parks and areas scheduled as of outstanding natural beauty.

Mr. Corfield: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 7th July last.

Mr. Boyden: Now that the Parliamentary Secretary admits that he has not sufficient information about the location or size of this problem, will he give an indication of what information he intends to obtain and, more important, whether his Department proposes to revise the methods for dealing with this very serious problem?

Mr. Corfield: Revising the methods is another question. The problem at the moment is that the information we get is shown on development plans which cover different periods for different areas, so it is not possible to relate the information to the position overall on any particular date. It was to that that the circular was directed.

River Authorities (Establishment)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make the necessary orders establishing the new river authorities provided for by the Water Resources Act, 1963; and when he expects such river authorities to exercise the functions to be assigned or transferred to them.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have now made orders establishing all the river authorities except that for the Lancashire area which will be made very shortly. It is contemplated that the authorities will begin to exercise their functions on 1st April, 1965.

Isle of Sheppey

Mr. Boston: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what plans he has to amend the proposals in the South-East Study and White Paper, so that the Isle of Sheppey can be brought into the revised plan and form a major part of it.

Mr. Corfield: The Kent County Council has made proposals of this nature in the statement of its views on the Study

which it has submitted to my right hon. friend. Its views will be taken into account when final decisions on the Study proposals are reached.

Mr. Boston: Is the Minister aware that people will be relieved to hear that the matter is being considered? Does he recall that the Kent Development Plan, which was published in November of last year, very strongly urged the incorporation of Sheppey in development in the Kent area and that that Plan was published some months before the South-East Study was published on 19th March of this year? Therefore, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that a great deal of time has elapsed and that the moment has come to make a more positive statement?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, already indicated that he is prepared to approve the town map which allows for an increase in population from 16,000 to 41,000 and the allocation of very large areas for industrial development.

Ecclesiastical Buildings (Preservation Orders)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the recent decision of the High Court that a rectory house is to be deemed an ecclesiastical building and is therefore excluded, under Section 30(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 from those classes of buildings on which building perservation orders may be made, he will introduce amending legislation which will enable him to make preservation orders on ecclesiastical buildings of special historic or architectural interest.

Mr. Corfield: Since the exemption operates only while the building is in use for ecclesiastical purposes, my right hon. Friend is not clear that any difficulty is likely to arise.

Mr. Driberg: Is that not rather a vague Answer? While it may be true that no difficulty is likely to arise because we can assume, for example, that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's would not be so wicked as to pull down the Deanery and sell the site to a developer, is it


not a fact that if they wished to do so, or if something similar were to happen, the right hon. Gentleman would now have no legal way of preventing it?

Mr. Corfield: A vague Question almost invariably gets a vague Answer. However, I understand the situation to be that, in order to circumvent the position, the Ecclesisastical Commissioners or some other Church body would virtually have to knock the house down as the parson walked out of the door; and although an unlikely happening, I will discuss this matter with the Church authorities.

Mr. Driberg: Since the Joint Parliamentary Secretary likes precision and not vagueness, will he take note of the fact that my Question was a very exact one and asked for amending legislation, with precise references, and will he also note that they are not called "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners" but "The Church Commissioners"?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. MacColI: When discussing this matter with the ecclesiastical authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I use the expression "ecclesiastical authorities" in general terms and not referring specifically a particular body—would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works to find out what effect the decision has had on the eligibility of parsonage houses for the historic buildings grant, since this affects their preservation?

Mr. Corfield: Yes. I will certainly take that into account.

South-East Study (Berkshire County Council and Newbury)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what has been the outcome of the preliminary discussions he has had with the Berkshire County Council and other local authorities on the proposal made in the South-East Study for creating a new city in the Newbury neighbourhood; and what arrangements he has in mind for ensuring that local knowledge and opinion are fully considered in a more detailed survey before any decisions are reached.

Sir K. Joseph: I have not yet received the observations of the Berkshire County

Council and Newbury Borough Council following the preliminary discussions to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand, however, that the County Council may propose a joint study of the development possibilities in a somewhat wider area. I would certainly give any such suggestion careful consideration.

Sir A. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Berkshire County Council last Saturday passed a resolution saying that while it did not accept, on present evidence, the need for a new city in the Newbury area, it was willing to enter into consultations for a closer survey to take place with my right hon. Friend's Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see whether additions to the existing towns in the area might better meet the needs of the situation and overcome the local anxieties about what a new city would mean to us?
Will he accept from the whole House our congratulations upon adding yet one more member to the population of the South-East this morning?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal remark.
Without committing myself until I have seen the terms of the proposal being made, I can assure him that the project he has in mind will be most sympathetically considered.

Greater London Boroughs (Principal Officers)

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what guidance he proposes to issue to Greater London boroughs with a view to ensuring that they should act as good employers in the appointment of their principal officers.

Sir K. Joseph: The advice of the London Government Staff Commission on the procedure to be followed in making these appointments has already been sent to the London borough councils. Its essential purpose is to ensure that these authorities first seek their chief officers from staff affected by the reorganisation of London government; but the final choice among suitable candidates must in each case rest with the council itself.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a good employer would give special weight to such factors as local knowledge, experience, length of service and seniority, and would it not be helpful in some of the problems with which these new authorities are faced, consequent upon amalgamation, if he were to issue some clear guidance on these points?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that I have passed on scrupulously the guidance provided by the London Government Staff Commission, which was set up for that purpose. Certainly, the points my hon. Friend mentions are among those to be taken carefully into account by the employing authorities, but I must, in the last resort, leave the discretion to them.

Land, The Hartlepools

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many acres of land are available for industry in Hartlepool and West Hartlepool, respectively.

Mr. Corfield: About 50 acres in Hartlepool, and about the same in West Hartlepool.

Commander Kerans: Will my hon. Friend assure me that there is sufficient land available in large contiguous areas so that large industries, such as the car industry, can come there in future?

Mr. Corfield: I understand that this area includes a number of very large sites, and that several hundred acres are available to the south in the Stockton district as well. I have no evidence that shortage of available land is in any way inhibiting the establishment of industry in this area.

Flood Relief

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to enable him to initiate schemes for providing compensation for the relief of residents in areas affected by flooding.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. Insurance cover against flood has been readily available at modest cost since the severe floods of

1961, and my right hon. Friend sees no need for legislation.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Slough, because of the overflowing of two lakes in a neighbouring area, there has been widespread flooding, with the destruction of carpets, clothes, bedding and everything else? Is there not some means of granting compensation in such cases, and would the Parliamentary Secretary consider applying it to the Slough cases?

Mr. Corfield: Of course, the precedent is before the floods to which I have referred, and before insurance companies were generally able to afford the cover I mentioned. But what the hon. Member is asking is that those taxpayers and ratepayers who insure their own goods should be required to step in for other people who do not, and I do not really think that that is a very strong case.

Mr. Brockway: But is it not the fact that this kind of act of God, which is entirely unexpected, is not something that is insurable?

Mr. Corfield: No, that is not so.

Redhill Comprehensive Development Area

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused by delay in giving approval to the Redhill Comprehensive Development Area; and when he expects to give his decision.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. But the difficulty is that this comprehensive development proposal incorporates the diversion of two trunk roads A.23 and A.25.
My right hon. Friend is discussing the issues with his right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and he will give his decision as soon as possible.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will not my hon. Friend agree that as this is a very large area he could give at least an interim decision concerning all those parts which are not affected by the line of the proposed diversions?

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the question of giving a decision on part


of these proposals is full of legal difficulties, but my right hon. Friend will certainly endeavour to give a decision as soon as he possibly can.

Oxted and Limpsfield Town Map

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects that a decision will be given on the Oxted and Limpsfield town map now before him for his approval; and whether he is aware that the delay in giving approval is holding up progress with the scheme for by-passing Old Oxted.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend's decision on this town map is not likely to be given until early next year.
He is, however, prepared to deal with the by-pass proposal separately and has told the Surrey County Council so. If it agrees he hopes to be able to issue a decision on this shortly.

Aircraft, Wales (Supersonic Tests)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he has taken in respect of the telegram sent him by the Welsh Tourist and Holidays Board on 2nd July about the proposed supersonic testing in Wales during the holiday period, which will result in interference with the Board's efforts on behalf of the industry.

Sir K. Joseph: I have written to the chairman of the Board explaining that the proposed programme of tests are similar to that carried out in previous years; these did not give rise to complaints from anyone associated with the tourist industry, or cause any undue inconvenience, intrusive noise or damage. Therefore I have no reason to think that the future programme will do otherwise.

Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that far more tests are to be undertaken within the next 12 weeks than ever before and that there are already serious complaints from farmers and holiday-makers? We, like the right hon. Gentleman, want to encourage more holiday-makers to come to Wales but if, as it is intended, they have to put up with

these bangs they are less likely to come to seek the peaceful atmosphere of Wales.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Member has become mistaken in some way. The programme is not larger than before and the only danger to tourism in Wales is exaggerated reports, such as the hon. Member might be giving rise to, which would keep holiday-makers away.

Dr. Bray: Is there not a genuine difficulty here on which the right hon. Gentleman should take action in that the distribution of test areas as it affects the population is a matter on which he is in a better position to judge than the Minister of Aviation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the responsibility should be his rather than that of another Ministry?

Sir K. Joseph: That is a different question, but I do not feel that the hon. Member is right. My right hon. Friend is perfectly well aware of the distribution of population when making his decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Three-bedroomed Houses (Average Tender Price)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the latest average tender price for three-bedroomed houses as approved by him; and how this figure compares with that for the same date in 1963, 1959 and 1951, respectively.

Sir K. Joseph: The latest figures relate to the first quarter of 1964, when the average tender price for a two-storey three-bedroom house, adjusted to a standard area of 900 square feet, was £2,210. The figures for the corresponding quarters of 1963, 1959 and 1951 were £2,047. £1,489 and £1,173.

Mr. Boyden: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the reply that I received yesterday from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works that the price of bricks increased by 18 per cent. between May, 1960, and May, 1962, by a further 7 per cent. in the next year, and by a further


7 per cent. the year after that? What steps is the Minister taking, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend, to try to keep this inflationary effect on building costs down?

Sir K. Joseph: The steps the Government are taking are to encourage local authorities to place, where suitable, five-year contracts, to join in groups to get the maximum benefit from large buying power, and to adopt, where suitable, competitive building systems as well as traditional systems.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not true from the figures my right hon. Friend has given that the cost of such accommodation has in fact risen less over the 13 years than the average increase in earnings and wages?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes; my hon. Friend is quite right. House prices increased by 88 per cent. between 1951 and the first quarter of 1964. The average earnings of manual workers increased between 1951 and October, 1963—the latest available figures in the Ministry of Labour statistics—by 104 per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Would it not be better if the Minister concentrated on some of the other major causes of inflation, such as high land prices, interest charges and the matter I raised, rather than constantly denigrating the building workers, whose efficiency has increased very much and who deserve the rates they get?

Sir K. Joseph: No; I think that my hoc Friend's supplementary question supports the view that people can afford to buy the houses or to rent the houses, despite the rise in prices.

Mr. Stainton: Would my right hon. Friend also inform us whether an important aspect of this problem is that of productivity? Have not wages on sites virtually doubled since 1951, whereas output per man hour has risen by significantly less?

Sir K. Joseph: That is another question, of which I should like to have notice about housing. The building industry has raised productivity, certainly in housing within my field, substantially in some areas, and we hope mat this trend is continuing now.

Mr. M. Stewart: In giving figures of average earnings will the Minister remember that they are earnings and not wage rates and that the figure of earnings which keeps pace with house and rent prices is often maintained only by working very long hours?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I will remember that: but will the hon. Gentleman remember that the price of houses and the movement in the price of houses includes some improvement in the standard of equipment that goes into these houses. This has happened particularly over the last three years.

Waiting Lists (Residential Qualifications)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will call for a return from local authorities to discover how many of them have given effect to one of the recommendations of the Central Housing Advisory Committee in its report on residential qualifications issued in 1955 that local authorities should give newcomers points for time on the waiting list of another district in lieu of residential qualification.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. This is one of many suggestions which my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have commended to the attention of housing authorities. But responsibility for the management of local authority houses is reserved by Statute to the authorities themselves, and it is not for him to intervene in the detailed exercise of this responsibility.

Mr. Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are quite a number of cases of persons who, through no fault of their own, are forced to move from one local authority area to another and, in consequence, find themselves each time at the end of the housing queue? Is not this a matter to which the attention of local authorities should be directed rather more forcibly than it is at present? Should not they be asked to give effect to this recommendation?

Mr. Corfield: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is much to be preferred if there is no residential qualification at all, but in areas of considerable pressure from immigrants


from outside the area there is a case for local authorities which feel that their existing residents should have some degree of priority.

Mr. H. Hynd: Although one wishes to preserve the principle that the Government should not interfere with local authorities more than is absolutely necessary, would the Minister agree that where a local authority is not doing its duty properly it is then for the Government to intervene?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, but I do not think that this is a case where a local authority can be said not to be doing its duty properly.

Subsidies (Review)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make a statement on his review of housing subsidies.

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot add to the reply given by my hon. Friend on 2nd June.

Mr. Allaun: Since the review is due shortly, in reaching his conclusions will the Minister bear two points in mind? First, it is the Government's doubling of interest rates that has doubled council house rents and, secondly, it is not the tenants who are being subsidised so much as the financiers?

Sir K. Joseph: No, I cannot bear those points in mind, either in the form in which they are put by the hon. Member or exclusively. The point I will bear in mind is that it is the duty of the Government to see that people can be decently housed by local authorities, regardless of their means—and there is no evidence whatever to show that this is not the case today.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister not prepared to review the whole position in the light of the very alarming figures which have been released by the Town and Country Planning Association and which show that the right hon. Gentleman has grossly under-estimated the magnitude of the problem?

Sir K. Joseph: A later Question appears on the Order Paper on this subject. The hon. Gentleman's imputation is completely wrong. This Question is

about housing subsidies, about which a review is going on.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister at any rate relieve the anxiety of those local authorities which fear that he may be using as soon as he can his powers under the 1961 Act to refuse or abolish existing subsidies?

Sir K. Joseph: There is absolutely no evidence of any intention in my mind of that at the moment.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many houses in Great Britain and in Salford, owner-occupied and landlord-owned, respectively, baths, inside water-closets, and hot water systems have been installed by means of standard improvement grants since the scheme started.

Mr. Corfield: In Great Britain up to 31st March last 139,500 privately owned houses were provided with baths, 131,000 with water-closets and 153,000 with hot water systems, with the help of standard grants. For Salford the figures were 179 baths, 171 water-closets and 170 hot water systems. I cannot say how many of these houses in Great Britain and in Salford were owner-occupied, or let; but about three-quarters of all standard grants to private owners were for owner-occupied houses.

Mr. Allaun: Are not those numbers pitifully inadequate compared with the one-in-four families living in houses without a bath, as revealed by the latest Government figures, and does not that fact reflect a very odd kind of affluent society? In view of this, will the Parliamentary Secretary write to local authorities asking them to submit to him their proposals for area improvement schemes and telling them that there are compulsory measures available to them where landlords are obdurate?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Housing Bill is about to complete its stages through Parliament. There will be circulars issued in that connection, but I will see that his point is borne in mind. However, I would remind him that the best test is to judge the number of improvements against the number of houses capable of


being improved; and in the Salford area, for example, the existing slum clearance programme covers 19,000 dwellings, which is very little short of the total number of houses in the borough which do not have baths, and is very much in excess of those without other facilities.

Mr. Gower: Apart from houses which have been improved with the aid of grants, has my hon. Friend any figures to show the considerable number of houses which in some areas have been improved without grants but by the owners themselves?

Mr. Corfield: I have no exact figures but I have no doubt that a considerable number have been so improved.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary know that in many local authority areas—I cannot speak for Salford but I certainly can speak for Stoke-on-Trent—there are a large number of houses with 15 and even 30 years life left to them yet where the figures of improvements are appalling, showing that landlords are not measuring up to the provisions of the Act? Since landlords are now able to get greater assistance than was available to them previously, what pressure is the Minister bringing to bear on them to see that they improve their houses rather than try to get their tenants out so that they can sell their property at inflated prices?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Lady must have been absent for the greater part of this Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or she would know about the Measure which has as a major purpose the giving of compulsory powers to local authorities to force landlords to make these improvements.

Mrs. Slater: On a point of order. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw that remark, because if any hon. Member has a record of attending this House and Standing Committees and taking part in our deliberations, I should have pride of place on the list.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: It is not out of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Corfield: I am perfectly prepared to withdraw. I think I am entitled to remind the hon. Lady that she must

know about the provisions of this Measure, on which we have spent many hours, and the fact that those provisions will do what she is asking.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on.

Mr. Allaun: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary made a mistake when reading one of his answers. He just told me that there are 1,900 houses in Salford without baths. He must know that the figure is over 30,000. He must, therefore, have made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I cannot correct Ministers' answers in relation to the facts.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in Stoke-on-Trent, owner-occupied and landlord-owned, respectively, have received improvement grants since 1949.

Mr. Corfield: In Stoke-on-Trent 3,720 improvement grants were made to private owners from 1949 to 31st May, 1964. Of the 2,538 made since 1960, when separate records began to be kept, 2,220 were to owner-occupiers, 318 to other private owners.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman now realise that this figure is much below what it ought to be? Does he realise that we are not merely concerned with what will be the law after this Parliament but with the law as it is now? Does he consider that 7 per cent. of tenanted houses is sufficient improvement? Cannot he do something between now and October to urge these people to get the job done?

Mr. Corfield: No, I do not consider it sufficient, and that is why we put the provision into the Housing Bill, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that one cannot use the power of the Bill until it becomes an Act.

New Houses (Fireguards)

23. Mrs. Hart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that every new subsidised house has fireplace fittings for


the fixing of fireguards, in view of the evidence in the recent British Medical Association Survey on Accidents in the Home that in 65 per cent. of cases of burns due to a fire, fixed fireguards were not in use.

Mr. Corfield: Local housing authorities have on several occasions been advised to provide fixtures for fireguards in accordance with the appropriate British Standard.

Mrs. Hart: Has the hon. Gentleman any indication of how many local authorities have taken his advice? Is he aware that, as far as I know—and certainly in most of the new towns of Britain—this advice has not been taken? Is it not clear that something further should be done in ensuring that the proper standard is adhered to, especially in view of this recent survey?

Mr. Corfield: I will not bore the House with the details, but I have a large list of occasions on which this was brought to the notice of local housing authorities. But if the hon. Lady has evidence on the lines she suggests, I will certainly consider how I can make local authorities more aware of the problem.

Council Houses, West Ham

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs for the building of how many council houses Ministerial permission was requested, and for how many houses permission was granted in each year from 1945 to date, in the County Borough of West Ham; what was the total cost of the houses in each calendar year; if he will state the average cost for each type of stated house, the cost and the actual cost of repayment for the money borrowed; and if he will publish these details in HANSARD.

Mr. Corfield: I will, with permission, publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the available information about programmes requested and approved, and details of numbers of dwellings in tenders approved for these years. I regret that information about the total and average costs of the dwellings concerned could not be extracted without a great deal of work, and that my right hon. Friend has no

information about the cost of repayment for the money borrowed.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister take it from me that the figures show a drastic increase in the cost of these types of houses? As the Government have declared their intention, if elected, to reduce prices, increase the purchasing value of the £ and reduce the cost of living, can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the prices of these houses and the cost of interest repayments have gone up so much? These things vitally affect the prices of houses. What is the reason for the increases, and when does he intend to reduce these costs?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of course, that the value of money depends not only on rising prices but on rising earnings, which have already been the subject of some discussion this afternoon.

Following is the table:


WEST HAM COUNTY BOROUGH


Housing Programmes and Tenders approved


Calendar Year
Programme requested
Programme agreed
Dwellings in Tenders approved


1945
(a)
(a)
473


1946


1947
(a)
(a)
490


1948
(b)
(c)
121


1949
(b)
(c)
178


1950
(b)
350
352


1951
(b)
350
213


1952
(b)
350
310


1953
(a)
(a)
407


1954
(b)
889
889


1955
(a)
(a)
561


1956
(a)
(a)
757


1957
(a)
(a)
507


1958
1,027
735
679


1959
749
749
568


1960
761
761
598


1961
(a)
(a)
675


1962
1,162
722
477


1963
(a)
(a)
840


1964 (6 months)
(a)
(a)
807

Notes

(a) No programmes were submitted or agreed for these years.

(b) For these years, programmes were settled on the basis of allocations and not on programmes submitted by the local authority.

(c) For these years, programmes were settled on a July to June basis and are not therefore comparable with the tenders approved.

Overcrowded Dwellings (Evicted Persons)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will issue a circular of advice to local authorities on the best course of action when persons are evicted from overcrowded dwellings and there is no accommodation in which to rehouse them.

Sir K. Joseph: It is the duty of housing authorities to consider the housing needs of their districts and make provision accordingly. I have no evidence that evictions due to overcrowding are a general problem, but where a family is evicted and no other accommodation is immediately available for their rehousing, they must come for the time being into the care of the welfare authority.
I am sure that housing and welfare authorities generally are well aware of their responsibilities and the courses of action open to them, but if the hon. Member has any particular difficulties in mind I will gladly consider any information he can give me.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the right hon. Gentleman very well aware of the difficulties I have in mind? Does he not know that in Slough there are 40 cases of eviction from overcrowding now before the council, with no accommodation whatsoever in which the people can be placed? When does the Minister intend to face up to this crisis in the towns of the South-East which are now overcrowded and which have no possibility at all of accommodating their citizens, and where no young married couple can get a house or a flat? When does he intend to do something about it?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of the 40 cases—or, indeed, of any number—in Slough, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me details. But it is true that local authorities faced with evictions due to overcrowded multi-occupied houses have effective powers with which to deal with the problem. I will communicate with the Slough authority this afternoon to make sure that it fully understands these powers.

Mr. Paget: Is effective power much use without effective houses?

Sir K. Joseph: The effective powers to which I refer are powers, in the last resort—once the present Housing Bill has received the Royal Assent—to apply a control order to the property or, in some cases, to take over the property by compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Brockway: But when there is no accommodation available, how can the local authorities possibly provide for these people?

Sir K. Joseph: Because the point is that the accommodation from which the people have been evicted would, by this means, be made available for them.

Co-ownership Housing Associations

27. Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects the model rules for co-ownership housing associations to be available to co-ownership groups wishing to establish such associations.

Sir K. Joseph: I expect the model rules and other documents for co-ownership housing associations to be available later this month.

Mrs. Butler: Since this is a comparatively new idea in this country and needs special encouragement, is it not most unfortunate that embryo societies that have been trying to get going have been frustrated in this way? Can the Minister speed things up, and issue the rules in a few days? I understand that they are all ready.

Sir K. Joseph: I regret the delay—it has been a complicated legal matter to get the rules ready—but the interested associations have had guidance from the National Federation which has enabled them to get going.

Milner Holland Committee (Report)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in view of the extent of homelessness in London, if the Milner Holland Committee intends to make an interim report on this aspect of its inquiries before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I understand that the Committee does not feel that it


could make a useful report until it has received and considered all the evidence which it has called for.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the situation of the homeless in London is getting steadily worse? There are now 1,200 homeless families, and there are expected to be 10 times that number if the drift to the South-East continues. Since the new London boroughs will have to take over responsibility in this matter, and are making their plans already, is there any way in which this report can be brought forward so that the new London boroughs can have the evidence and advice of the Milner Holland Committee on which to base their plans?

Sir K. Joseph: I believe that the Committee regards homelessness as a very important, but only one, strand in the complex problem it is considering. The Committee is working as hard and as fast as it can, and the report will therefore emerge as quickly as is practicable.

Mr. A. Lewis: Will the Minister say what he means by the report emerging as quickly as is practicable? Does he think that it will be in his hands probably before the date of the General Election, and could we have it so that we can discuss it during the election? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to expedite the report?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I have asked for the report as soon as possible. I am told that there is a strong probability of its being available by the end of the year, if all goes well.

Housing Act, 1957 (Schedule II)

Mrs. Barbara Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will amend Schedule II to the Housing Act, 1957, to extend the provisions for supplemental compensation to cover houses acquired by the local authority after 1965.

Sir K. Joseph: I am considering the position that will arise after 12th December, 1965, when the concession ends, but I cannot hold out the prospect of any general extension of the provisions.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that in a town like Blackburn, where

about 25,000 sub-standard houses are due for eventual clearance, it is quite impossible for the local authority to acquire before 1965 all the houses which would qualify for full market value under Schedule II? Since the majority of these houses are owner-occupied, and their owners have sunk their life savings in them, is it not most unfair that the local authority should not be allowed to pay for them the actual value where, as in the case of Blackburn, the authority is anxious to do so?

Sir K. Joseph: I have undertaken in my Answer to consider the whole question, but I must point out that the concession applies to people who bought their houses before 1955 and that by 1965 they will have a minimum of 10 years' and possibly a maximum of 26 years' use of the property, but I have undertaken to look at the whole matter.

Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the points raised by East Ham Borough Council on these matters? May not those be typical of local authorities which have big schemes under review? Where there is delay because of pressure on the inquiry system in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry may there not be a case for a special concession to carry forward the supplemental compensation?

Sir K. Joseph: There are always problems at the boundary whenever an arbitrary line is taken, but I will certainly bear the hon. Member's point in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Pentland: asked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from industrial and commercial sources about the country's current economic and political position; and what has been the nature of his reply.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The nature of my replies must depend on the nature of the representations.

Mr. Pentland: Is the Prime Minister aware that concern has been expressed by certain financial and commercial interests about the country's political


position particularly with regard to the timing of the General Election? In order to avoid speculation about outside pressures being brought to bear upon him, can we take it that before the House rises for the Summer Recess the right hon. Gentleman will make an announcement about the date of the General Election?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I am susceptible to outside pressures, and now that the hon. Member has disclosed his question I hope that he will put it on the Order Paper.

Sir C. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present economic position is the finest this country has ever known?

Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pressures to which I am referring concern the reference made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Poole, to the General Election? Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify that assumption by Lord Poole?

The Prime Minister: I could not possibly have detected that from the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and to what extent agreement was reached on the policy to be pursued by the United Kingdom Government towards Southern Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the communiqué to be issued at the end of the Conference.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there has already been at least one official communiqué referring to the position of Southern Rhodesia? Has he accepted the advice of the other Prime Ministers and is he willing now to take on the responsibility on the part of the United Kingdom for guiding this territory towards majority rule?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member had better wait and see.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While we must await the communiqué, and while the question of Southern Rhodesia is primarily one for Southern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom, may I ask whether it is not gratifying that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, of all races and continents, should have given such a constructive discussion to the social, economic and cultural advancement of their peoples, and is not the whole Commonwealth grateful for the lead which has been set by my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I very much hope that we are making good progress with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, but I think that we had better await the communiqué before I say very much more.

Mr. Bottomley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people of Britain believe in majority rule irrespective of class or creed? In those circumstances, should not Her Majesty's Government see that majority rule prevails?

The Prime Minister: I was asked if I would make a statement and I said no, not before the communiqué.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (ECONOMIC, DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY RELATIONS)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister what official machinery exists to co-ordinate the policies and actions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to United Kingdom economic, diplomatic, and military relations with Spain.

The Prime Minister: The Cabinet.

Mr. Stonehouse: If it is not out of order, may I thank the Prime Minister for at last agreeing to answer this sort of Question? Before the right hon. Gentleman made his electioneering speeches in the country on the supply of frigates to Spain, was he certain that an order had been placed and were the negotiations about the supply of arms to Spain merely a preamble to discussions for Spain to be


admitted to some military alliance with us? Where does the Prime Minister draw the line? Is he now prepared to supply any sort of arms to Spain?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is a Question on the Order Paper which I hope to answer if hon. Members will let me come to it. On this Question, we had no reason to suppose that there was not going to be this order, and a great many other orders would probably have followed. The Spanish people desire to buy British. I do not really know how hon. Members opposite have the face to raise this question again.

Mr. Hastings: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that what is really necessary is some machinery to co-ordinate the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were most promising negotiations for the supply of steel products which had nothing to do with these frigates, and they have suddenly evaporated since the Leader of the Opposition made his intervention'.' Is it not probable that this event has done much to negate the effect of the British Trade Fair this spring?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am bound to say that I have been profoundly disturbed by these developments, and I think that a great weight of responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members opposite, in that when everyone else is striving to increase exports right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing their utmost to discourage them.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman is always telling us how strong the economy is, may I ask him whether he is saying that after 13 years of his Government's rule, full employment and our balance of payments depend on the sale of frigate plans to Spain? If this is so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs have been lost and how many millions of foreign exchange have been lost by the Government's refusal to permit the sale of peaceful merchant ships to the Soviet Union and a peaceful atomic reactor to Rumania?

The Prime Minister: The question of Soviet Union ships must depend upon an order coming from the Soviet Union. No

order has come. In reply to the first supplementary question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me, I do not say that the whole of our future depends upon one—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not want to listen, I quite understand why they do not. The whole of the trade of our country does not depend upon one order, but here is a new market in which we can make inroads, and the right hon. Gentleman has effectively seen that it is closed to us.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling us that General Franco has decided the outcome of the election, even if the right hon. Gentleman has not? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman deny that his Government vetoed the sale of merchant ships to Russia and more recently—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We want to make better progress with the Prime Minister's Questions, and we cannot unless we listen.

Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman further deny that the Government vetoed an oil-for-ships deal with the Soviet Union? Finally, is it not clear from evidence accumulating day by day that the Prime Minister rushed in a bit early on this and that, following the leak from Government sources to the Daily Express, there were interventions by American and other sources? Is it not clear that the whole thing was a put-up job?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best but he has—[Interruption.]—It is not my responsibility if these Questions are going on and on. I am going to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am entitled to say that he made a deplorable mistake, and he knows it. We are only too anxious to trade with the Soviet Union but this must be on an ordinary commercial basis. The Government do not veto trade with the Soviet Union. Indeed, we have shown this year that we have done a great deal of trade with the Soviet Union and we intend to do much more.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The House will have to find another occasion to debate this matter. We must get on.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARCRAFT NOISE (SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS)

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee consisting of representatives of the Departments of Aviation, Housing and Local Government, Health, Home Office, and Education and Science to investigate the effects of aircraft noise in establishments such as schools and hospitals, and to recommend the appropriate action to be taken by different Departments for the sound-proofing of establishments under their control.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anything would be gained by setting up an interdepartmental committee. One school and two hospitals in Middlesex have already been designed with specific provision against aircraft noise and the Ministry of Health has circulated general guidance to hospital authorities on protection against noise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing practice of Ministers making policy statements after the House of Commons has adjourned for a Recess; and whether he will arrange for any Ministerial statements which are due to be made in the next few months to be brought forward so that these can be made to the House of Commons before the Summer Recess.

The Prime Minister: The business of the Government continues during Parliamentary Recesses. As I said in answer to a Question on 12th December last, statements of Government policy are made in Parliament when Parliament is sitting.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have noticed for years past that immediately the Recess takes place the Government start making announcements? Can he give us an assurance that any statement which could be made before the House goes into Recess will be so made, particularly the statement which is expected relating to an increase or adjustment in retirement pensions? Could we not have it this week or, at any rate, before the

House rises for the Summer Recess instead of waiting until the Summer Recess?

The Prime Minister: I believe there is a Question dealing with pensions on the Paper for answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance tomorrow. I think that will stand. Any statements which can be made before the Parliamentary Recess will, of course, be made.

Lord Balniel: If Conservative Ministers are not to make their statements during the Recess, will my right hon. Friend arrange for them to make their Ministerial statements as soon as possible after the next Parliament assembles?

Mr. Shinwell: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would not express any policy during the Recess in order to advance the political prospects of the Government? Can we have his assurance to that effect?

The Prime Minister: The Government's fortunes are advancing so quickly that there is no need to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Foreign Secretary at Brayford North, Lincoln, on 7th July on foreign policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: As the Foreign Secretary in his speech repeated the false charge that in some mysterious way the Labour Party destroyed the deal over the Spanish frigates, will not the Prime Minister agree that what really happened was that because of the premature disclosure in the British Press, authorised by the Ministry of Defence, that negotiations were going on, the Spanish took umbrage and went back on the negotiations? Even the Ministry of Defence spokesman said that the announcement was supposed to be made in Madrid. [Interruption.] I can wait until hon. Members opposite have finished. I can understand their not wanting to ascertain the facts. They are immensely discreditable to the


Prime Minister and his Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to publish a White Paper setting out all the facts about the negotiations and stating exactly what happened, what orders were given and when they were withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: These were commercial deals. Whatever hon. Members opposite suspect, they were deals between our shipbuilding and engineering industries and the Spanish Navy. It is not for me—[Interruption.] I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must be feeling extraordinarily guilty about this. If it is a question of insults, it is not for me to interpret the position of the Spanish people or of the Spanish Government. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite offered a gratuitous insult to a proud people, and they have also put an effective end to an ordinary commercial deal.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Since there seems to be so much furore about all this, can my right hon. Friend tell us how much pressure he has received from the Opposition for a Supply Day debate on this subject which would particularly give to those hon. Members opposite who have first-hand recent experience of conditions in Spain an opportunity to express their views?

The Prime Minister: We have not heard much about that yet.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary admitted that there was a premature disclosure on this matter by the Government? Will he say whether the Ministry of Defence began by confirming that there was an order and then failed to deny it, and could he also tell us whether, from about 1961, this kind of negotiation with the Spanish Government has taken place, off and on, and that this last one was no more real than the previous ones in the last two or three years?

The Prime Minister: Not only was this one real but a great many others would have been real, too. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite had not made such a continual noise during the past 10 minutes, I should have answered the Question on this subject later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the time and the Prime Minister's expressed intention to answer Question No. Q8, a Question he had redirected to himself after having first transferred it to the Minister of Defence, will you, Mr. Speaker, say whether, in these unusual circumstances, you would give the Prime Minister permission now to answer Question No. Q8?

Mr. Speaker: The position is that I do not make pronouncements of that kind. I merely say whether I have had such a request. I have not.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to discuss the matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will explain what is happening so that there will be no need for anyone's indignation. I called the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in the belief that he wished to ask a supplementary question on the Answer now current. He responded in other terms, but I reserve to him the right to ask a supplementary question should he wish to do so now.

Mr. Swingler: May I then, Mr. Speaker, ask a supplementary question which is perfectly relevant to the answers which have just been given?
Will the Prime Minister now answer Question No. Q8 as to what action he is taking about the premature disclosure of information on the negotiations with Spain, as confirmed by the Foreign Secretary? Who was responsible for the leak? Who was responsible for telling the Daily Express on 8th June that the deal was going through, and what action is the Prime Minister taking about it?

The Prime Minister: If hon. and right hon. Members had listened a bit earlier, they would have heard the answer long ago, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer his Question, I can tell him that the Answer is "No, Sir". Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you were to allow a supplementary question on that, it might be in order.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman answering a supplementary question from my hon. Friend or is he answering Question No. Q8?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked whether I would answer his Question No. Q8 on the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to straighten this. There is a state of some confusion. The last operation was that I called the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) to ask a supplementary question on Question No. Q6. He did so, and the Prime Minister answered it. There can be no question of answering Question No. Q8—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—unless I understand what was just said to be a request to answer Question No. Q8 after the hour of 3.30.

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND FOREIGN OFFICE (DOCUMENT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SWINGLER: To ask the Prime Minister if he will move to set up a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to investigate the premature disclosure by Ministers or public servants of a document dated 8th June circularised to certain Press officers of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.

The Prime Minister: For the convenience of the House, may I answer Question No. Q8?
The Answer is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Speaker: We are now straight. Mr. Swingler.

Mr. Swingler: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We now know where we are.
First, why did the Prime Minister transfer this Question to the Minister of Defence in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: That question is out of order, but I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman asking something else.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary who said on 15th June that there was a premature disclosure about the negotiations with Spain, and are we to understand

that he is taking no action about it? Third, how did it come about that a Ministry of Defence spokesman was quoted in the Daily Express of 9th June as saying that the deal had gone through? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly I can. The Navy public relations organisation had a manuscript note for use if, and when, agreement had been reached and announced. The brief was a purely internal document, not circulated outside the public relations organisation. The public relations officer knew that agreement was imminent and understood from the trend of questions put to him by certain correspondents that agreement had been reached. In this circumstance, he said what he did.

Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing whatever reprehensible about the conducting of these negotiations being known, and there is no reason whatever why they should not have been made public?

The Prime Minister: I said that earlier. My hon. Friend is quite right. All of us thought that the agreement was about to be concluded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, I have no doubt myself that it would have been. This officer simply made a mistake. Correspondents put questions to him in a certain way which is not unknown to right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Healey: Is not this a highly disreputable matter? Is the Prime Minister aware that on Monday the Secretary of State for Defence told the House, in response to a question from me, that no agreement was reached and that negotiations were going on with several other Governments besides the British Government? Is it not absolutely clear that in this case the Government caused one of their officials to make a false statement to the Press—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the whole of this story has arisen not out of the commercial interests of this country but entirely out of a desire on the part of the Prime Minister to have General Franco as his running mate in the election?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make that kind of accusation. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may have their standards.


We do not act on those standards. The negotiations proceeded with the Spanish naval authorities after the disclosure in the Daily Express, and it was not until the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition intervened that they were cut off.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now. Let us get on.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to answer Questions No. 36 and 37 at the end of Question Time, since these Questions refer to a report by a responsible body which brings into question both the competence and the good faith of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have received no such request.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a matter on which I would like your help. Some days ago, I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister asking him what reply he had sent to a letter addressed to him from one of my constituents, Mr. Melling, Secretary of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, in which Mr. Melling asked that the Government should give facilities for the passing of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short).
To my astonishment, I was informed by the Prime Minister that he had transferred that Question to the Minister of Transport. We are well aware of how anxious the Prime Minister is to avoid awkward questions, but is it not unprecedented, even in his tenure of office as Prime Minister, for a Question to be transferred about a personal letter from one of our constituents? How could the Minister of Transport answer a Question about a letter which was never addressed to him in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady will, I hope, understand—because it would get boring by repetition—that the transfer of Questions does not raise a point of order for

me. I do not have responsibility for it. It becomes an abuse of points of order if it is raised with me time and again. I hope that we can now stop the practice, because we have had a lot of it lately.

Mrs. Castle: Further to your reply, Mr. Speaker, which seemed to include a rebuke to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We know that hon. Members opposite do not want the Prime Minister to answer Questions.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an answer you yourself gave in the House last Thursday when my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) asked you what the position would be if a Question which would have been out of order if it had been put to a Minister in the first place was then transferred to him after being put down to the Prime Minister? Would it not have been quite out of order for me to have tabled a Question to the Minister of Transport asking him what reply the Prime Minister had given to my constituent? Did you not, last Thursday, promise to look into this point?

Mr. Speaker: I will look at it. There is no subtlety about this. I rule on the regularity or irregularity of a Question when it arises for my decision. What the hon. Lady is contemplating is such a situation which she says would arise as a result of a transfer, but that does not arise for my Ruling now.

Mr. Bellenger: I think that the House is not quite clear about this, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I am not. I think that the matter should be elucidated for future events, when, perhaps, we have a different Government. Question No. Q8 to the Prime Minister today was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) after the end of Question Time. You permitted that because the Prime Minister said that he was willing to answer it. But when my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked for Questions Nos. 36 and 37 to be answered, you said that you had had no indication from the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he was prepared to answer. What is the rule about insisting on answering Questions on the Order Paper after the end of Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The sequence in this instance was that I called the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to ask what I thought he was doing—a supplementary question to Question No. Q6. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will recall that the scope of the answers to Question No. 6 had run rather wide. I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was asking Question No. Q8 in time to stop him. I agree that he went on, irregularly and improperly, to ask Question No. Q8, at which point I stopped him and got him back to a supplementary question on No. Q6.
The second point arose in this way: the Prime Minister, on his feet in the presence of the House, asked leave to answer Question No. Q8 in the middle of that exchange. I treated that as an application for leave to answer it.

Captain Litchfield: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to Questions No. 39 and 40, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), which were not reached for oral answer? Is it not a breach of the customs and courtesies of the House for an hon. Member to make, in the form of a Parliamentary Question, imputations reflecting upon the integrity of a most honourable official in another Member's constituency, who cannot answer for himself in this place, and without the hon. Member concerned having received any notice?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. There are a great many things in the House for which I do not have responsibility—for instance, the well-known but to me undisclosed activities of the Whips.

Mr. Wigg: While it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that you have no responsibility for the transfer of Questions, would you take into account, in curtailing Questions on a particular matter like the Spanish frigates deal, the amount of manoeuvring going on by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in order to prevent the truth about this bogus deal being known?

Mr. Speaker: In what is called curtailing Questions, I will do my best at all times to carry out what I believe to be in the best interests of the House.

Mr. M. Foot: Mr. Speaker, you told my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), when she asked you about the transfer of Questions, that it was not a proper question to be asked of you and was, therefore, out of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister on the transfer of Questions you also ruled that out of order.
I submit to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, when he asked the Prime Minister why he had transferred a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence and then redirected it to himself, was putting a perfectly proper question. If it was not proper, and was out of order, then the Prime Minister or any other Minister appears to be protected from any question about the transfer of Questions which you yourself have always insisted is not a matter for you. If it is not a matter for you, who is it a matter for?

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to question a Minister about his reasons for transferring a particular Question. I would rather consider framing the precise reasons—although I can indicate them in general now—and give an express Ruling on those reasons for that being our rule. If the House agrees, I will state the reasons at a convenient opportunity.

Mr. Gordon Walker: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, could you give a Ruling on this further point? Supposing a Question is transferred and becomes out of order because it is addressed to the wrong Minister, at what point would it come within your cognisance as regards whether or no it is in order? Would it come within your cognisance at the moment of transfer, or at the moment it reached the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I speculate here in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be the first time I have become aware of it in its new state. I cannot say precisely what the answer would be: presumably, it would be when it appeared on the Order Paper addressed, if I may put it this way, to the transferee Minister.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Question No. 68 was originally addressed to the Prime Minister, but was transferred to the Foreign Secretary. It is


quite clear that you, Mr. Speaker, have no power in the matter. But the Foreign Secretary has not asked permission to answer the Question. Over that, of course, no one has jurisdiction. Would you arrange for the withdrawal of this Question from the Order Paper, because a written reply from the Foreign Secretary on this matter will be quite worthless to me?

Mr. Speaker: That would seem a good reason for not occupying the time of the House in withdrawing it. That can be done at the Table.

Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. If I may pursue the point of order initially raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday I raised with you the issue of a Question which I had put down to the Prime Minister, asking him how many Questions he had transferred from his Department to others in the last six months. I did not then know the reason why the Table Clerks sent me a card to say that the Question had been transferred, but I subsequently discovered that it was you who had declared the Question to be out of order.
Would you be kind enough to declare to the House the reasons for that? If we cannot ask the Prime Minister the reasons for his transferring of numbers of Questions, does not that put the House in an extremely difficult position? Are you aware that in the two months from 7th May to 9th July, the Prime Minister has answered 84 Oral Questions and has transferred 98—figures given by the Departments themselves?

Mr. Speaker: I spent some time considering the hon. Member's Question, because it puzzled me. I believe that it fell under the heading of the other Question to which I referred—asking a Minister his reasons for transfer—and I do not think that Ministers can be asked that.

Mr. Mendelson: Further to this point of order. Apart from the general problem, which affects many hon. Members from time to time, how is the individual Member to be protected if he puts down a Question to the Prime Minister, which then appears in print as addressed to the Prime Minister, so

that the hon. Member assumes that it will be answered by him, but then, on the day when the Question ought to have been answered, the hon. Member receives a note from the Prime Minister telling him at the very last moment that he is not to answer the Question and has transferred it?
When you are considering the general problem and the reasons for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, would you also consider how the individual hon. Member can be protected in such a situation?

Mr. Speaker: No. I cannot assume any responsibility for transfer. I have said it a great many times and so have my predecessors. I am very sorry, but I cannot do that.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Without in any way wishing to add to your burdens in this matter, Mr. Speaker, if you are to make a statement would you be kind enough to have a look at the facts in relation to this Question about an inquiry into what has happened about this Spanish business? Many of us hold the view—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot make a speech about facts under the guise of a point of order.

Mr. W. Hamilton: I want to pursue a little further a matter which I regard as very serious. The Question which I sought to put to the Prime Minister was purely statistical. It concerned information which must be available in the Prime Minister's office. If we are not to be allowed to get that information, we cannot decide for ourselves whether there has been a change of policy in the matter of switching Questions from the Prime Minister to other Departments. I should have thought that that Question was very much in order and very much to the point.
I want to get absolutely clear the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, are refusing Questions of that purely statistical nature rather than of policy involvements.

Mr. Speaker: I will explain to the hon. Gentleman, but I had better include it in my formal Ruling. I did explain that after much reflection I thought that his purely statistical Question


came into the category of the others which I conceived to be wrong.

Mr. Mitchison: When you are giving your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, would you please try to help me? If I want to put down an out of order Question to a Minister, is the only way I can do it to put it down to the Prime Minister and let him transfer it? Is that the only way in which I can get it on the Order Paper?

Mr. Woodburn: When you give this ruling, Mr. Speaker, which will be rather important, would you make clear whether the House has any right to ask Ministers Questions, because this now seems to be in doubt? Is it purely a matter of courtesy whether Ministers answer Questions? Need they answer Questions? Can they treat the House with contempt if they so desire?

Mr. Speaker: So far as order is concerned, they are under no obligation to answer, but I have no doubt that the House would deal with them if they adopted that policy.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

Hon. Members: You have just come in.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House invites the Chair to serve it in this office. It must treat it with reasonable courtesy and not burden it with either not quite accurately points of order, or so much noise that it cannot hear a point of order addressed to it. I hope that the House will bear that in mind.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. When you are considering this matter, Mr. Speaker—and I should say that I have been sitting at the end of the Chamber and no doubt everybody's eyes were turned on you and not on me—will you bear in mind that I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangement for the Order Paper and the way in which Ministers answer Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the fact that the hon. Lady is satisfied raises a point of order for me.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. When a previous point of order was raised, Mr. Speaker, you stated that a Minister was under no obligation to

answer Questions. It is part of our statutory procedure that there should be an hour devoted to Question Time. Does that not imply that Ministers are expected during the period that is allotted to Question Time to answer Questions addressed to them? Was it not a mistake on your part when you said that Ministers were under no obligation to answer Questions?

Mr. Speaker: As far as the Chair is concerned, as a matter of order they are not. I did not say more than that. It is quite true that a Minister can decline to answer a Question and be in order. That is all I am saying. Let us think about getting on to our business.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is the generally accepted view of back benchers that they are entitled to question the Government, but are not necessarily entitled to question individual Ministers? The principle of joint responsibility makes it clear that individual Ministers can answer for the Government, without specifying the Minister. Joint responsibility means that the Government must answer through a spokesman, but the House is not entitled to demand that an individual Minister should answer.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Paget: I want your guidance, Mr. Speaker on how Questions imputing that somebody has sold the plans of the equipment and armaments of our frigates come into the rule against imputing criminal conduct on behalf of another Member. On the latest decisions, I thought that the selling of the plans of our arms involved a criminal sentence of about 30 years. I wonder how these Questions are in order on the basis of the rule that imputing that sort of criminal conduct is against our rules of order.

Mr. Speaker: Because in my view they do not make that imputation.

Mr. Manuel: While you are examining the subject of switching Questions, will you take into your reckoning another facet of the problem, Mr. Speaker? On two recent occasions I have had Questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is a matter of transfer, it does not arise for me. I hope that I have made that clear.

Mr. Manuel: I want to deal with my point of order. On two occasions I have had Questions accepted by the Table Office as being in order for certain Ministers. The Department which the Minister concerned has controlled has taken up the matter with the Table Office and said that the Question was not in order and should be switched to another Department.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Department to say whether it is in order. The Department indicates transfer, and I have repeatedly said that transfer does not raise a point of order for the Chair.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: May I put in a plea for private Members?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. baronet cannot put in a plea for anything. He can rise to a point of order if he wants to do so, but not otherwise.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: That was only the preface of my remarks. I was going on to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Object."] I thought that I would get the House in the right mood.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will have the courtesy to allow me to hear the point of order.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: I am glad that I have been able to get the House in the right frame of mind.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have very limited facilities for private Members' business. I am referring not to private Members' legislation, but to the discussion of Private Members' Motions. Today is one of the rare occasions when we can discuss Private Members' Motions. May I put it to you, Sir, that we should terminate these points of order and get on with discussing the Motion entitled "Vehicles for those Injured in Industry"?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot terminate points of order. I have to hear what they are and to deal with them, if they

are proper. I trust that the House will ensure that they are not improper points of order.

Mr. Grimond: As many points of order have been raised covering a very wide field, could you, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House, state what particular points you are prepared to rule upon? Will you rule on whether we can question the Government on the transfer of Questions? Will you also rule on the point, which seems to me of importance, about all Questions being put down to the Government in general and answered by any Minister? If that is so, it seems anomalous that we divide the week into the responsibilities of different Ministries. For the convenience of the House, can you tell us exactly what you will rule upon?

Mr. Speaker: I will rule upon the impropriety of asking a Minister for reasons for transferring a given Question and, on the same basis, the wider one that the Question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) involved for me to consider, namely, a statistical question developing out of that line of thought. Those are the two things.

Mr. Wainwright: May I raise a very strong point of order? Am I right in believing that you, Mr. Speaker, are of the opinion that there is a strong feeling in the House against the Prime Minister transferring Questions? Last week, I asked—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech about that, or invite my opinion on any topic of that sort.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Matters of Forestry in Scotland, of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Report (Command Paper No. 2306), and of Agricultural Research in Scotland, being matters relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND)

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to safeguard the position of independent schools in Scotland, and to protect the right of parents to freedom of choice.
If, at one time, I had been told that I should be appealing to a predominantly English House of Commons for protection of our Scottish educational traditions, I should not have believed it. We in Scotland have always been proud of our educational traditions. We have always felt, possibly with too much conceit, that where we led England followed. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that I feel confident in appealing to my colleagues from England and Wales and Northern Ireland for support in the predicament in which we find ourselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] I have no hesitation in saying that my Scottish colleagues will, for the most part, support me.
I appeal to my colleagues from across the Border on another ground. I have made a discovery about the intentions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, if they should ever become the Government of this country, which I think the country is entitled to know. We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the country being entitled to know. It seems that they let the country know in a way that shipping companies and railway companies let their passengers know the rules and regulations which apply to the journey. We are all aware of what is printed on a railway or shipping ticket about people being subject to all the things in the small print in the hope that nobody will read the small print.
We have been treated by hon. Members opposite to a document called "Signposts for the Sixties", which has been widely circulated throughout the United Kingdom. It is very interesting and contains a great deal of information, but it leaves out a great deal of other information which, I think, the country is entitled to know. I have discovered that, besides "Signposts for the Sixties", hon. Members opposite have issued another document called "Signposts for Scotland". It is almost identical in form to the first

one. It is headed "The Labour Party", and the only difference on the cover, apart from the title, is that it costs 9d. instead of 6d. Whether that is intended to make it more difficult for people to acquire it I do not know. All that I can find out is that the Library copy has been out for several days and is almost unprocurable. I understand that it has been borrowed by an hon. Member opposite.
As I say, "Signposts for the Sixties" is a very interesting document. From page 29 to page 32, there is a great deal of verbiage on the subject of the independent schools which boils down to nothing, because on page 32 we find:
It would be wrong at this stage to lay down a detailed blueprint for the future rôle of the public schools—both because the next few years may well see a radical change in educational requirements and because the resources available in each of them will require careful assessment.
In other words, the Labour Party has not made up its mind. That is what the people of the country, especially those in England and Wales, have been told.
If we turn to the other document, we find an entirely different picture. There are two references to education. One is full of the usual sort of thing about slum schools. I do not know where they are, but possibly hon. Members opposite do. On page 19, there is a very interesting supplement to "Signposts for the Sixties" which states:
Fee-paying schools form a very small, but nevertheless privileged, sector of our Scottish system. We intend to end this educational privilege".
In other words, in this document which has a very small circulation, printed by the S.C.W.S. in Glasgow and costing 9d. instead of 6d., we find something which hon. Members opposite are trying to hide from our colleagues in England and Wales.
I think that I am performing a public duty by telling the House exactly their intentions. This is not a document which has been published by a few hotheads in Glasgow, because it is headed "The Labour Party". We find from page 2 that the document is published by the Labour Party and that it has received the endorsement of the National Executive. The country is entitled to know about this, and I consider it my duty to tell the people exactly what they may expect if we have the misfortune of a Labour Government coming to power.
What does this amount to in Scotland? Hon. Members opposite say that this is a very small matter in Scotland; but it is not. We have great public schools in Scotland. For instance, we have Fettes, which produced the previous Leader of the House. We have Gordonstoun, probably a more famous public school than any other in the world. We have Merchiston, Glenalmond, a very famous school, instituted by Mr. Gladstone, and Loretto.
However, these are not the schools which worry me, because a very important part of the educational system in Scotland consists of fee-paying schools, in accordance with our Scottish tradition that every boy, not matter who he is, whether the son of a duke or a labourer, is entitled to the best education that he can get and is entitled to it free if he cannot afford to pay.
It has always been part of Scottish tradition that if a boy's father could pay, he should pay to the best of his ability. That has been the guiding light for many fathers in Scotland for many generations.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Can boys get into Gordonstoun without paying?

Mr. Hendry: Of course they can. I was educated at Stirling High School, the Scottish equivalent of the ancient English grammar school. In the 1920s, parents who could afford to pay were invited to pay a modest fee. My father prided himself on paying the fees. I know that many other boys and girls were there whose parents could not alford to pay. They were there on equal terms with me.
That happens throughout Scotland even now. In the City of Aberdeen, there is the famous Robert Gordon's College, of 1,100 boys. Every year, 63 places are put at the disposal of the education authority. This is an invaluable contribution. Quite apart from anything else, it saves the rates in the City of Aberdeen no less than £60,000 a year. If the parents of the boys who go to this school can afford to pay, they are proud to do so.
If they did not pay these fees, what would parents do with the money? They would probably hire a television set,

which they cannot afford. The strange thing is that the fees for a boy at Robert Gordon's College amount to almost exactly the same as the rent of a television set for one year. Many parents in Scotland, as in England and Wales, deprive themselves to give their sons a better education than they themselves have had—and why not? If a mother is prepared to go without a new coat for five years so that her son can have a better education, why should she not do so? Why should she save the money and spend it at bingo halls instead of seeing that her son gets a better chance in life than he would otherwise have? This fundamental human freedom, which has been enjoyed by parents in Scotland and in England and Wales for many generations, is to be done away with.
When speaking about fundamental human freedoms, it is interesting to listen to hon. Members opposite praising the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is very largely lip-service, because here we have this declaration in "Signposts for Scotland". If, however, we turn to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, we find that
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
That is one of the fundamental human rights declared by the United Nations. But, evidently, the sponsors of "Signposts for Scotland", who support the United Nations, so they say, seem to forget this important point.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce contains two main Clauses. One seeks to safeguard the independent schools and to ensure that they receive the protection which they have always had under the common law of Scotland. Clause 2 would declare for the avoidance of doubt that the declaration of the United Nations is part, and will remain part, of the law of Scotland. Clause 3 would apply the Bill to Scotland only. If, however, any of my colleagues from England and Wales would care to put down an Amendment to extend the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom, I shall be happy so to apply it and to give its benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom instead of to Scotland alone.
Our fundamental freedom in Scotland—the freedom of parents to choose the education for their children, which has gone on from time immemorial—is in danger and I appeal to the House for this protection.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I rise to oppose the Motion. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has picked out from "Signposts for Scotland", a document which well deserves his attention and that of every other Member opposite, one sentence which he has then proceeded to erect into a threat to something in the Scottish way of life.
The sentence which the hon. Member quoted was, of course, correctly quoted:
We intend to end this educational privilege
That one sentence puts briefly what we think about something which has been stated more fully, more clearly and more explicitly on many occasions. I direct the hon. Member's attention to the fact that what we intend to end by this sentence is privilege. That is the operative word in the sentence. If the hon. Member wants to know rather more about what we think about these matters, and about what we intend to do, he will find any number of references in the statements which have been made over the years, either orally, as reported in the Press, or written in documents.
I give the hon. Member an instance which puts fairly clearly one of the essentian points connected with the argument which he has put:
Labour believes that in a democratic country parents must have the right to provide for the education of their children outside local authority schools if they so desire.
We can add to that the other rights to choose their own way of educating their children. This has been made clear and explicit time and time again by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House and elsewhere. No threat is involved, but there is a strong feeling on our part against privilege, whether in education or elsewhere, and a strong desire to end it.
The hon. Member has mentioned two different types of school: Fettes and Gordonstoun, on the one hand, and Stirling High School, which, in his day,

was fee-paying, and other fee-paying schools under the control of education committees. These are two quite different types of school. We propose to take no forcible steps about either of these types. Our intentions about the public schools are well known, because they have been much discussed. We intend to try by agreement with them to get the public schools to work more closely with the ordinary State education system. This applies on both sides of the Border.
As to fee-paying schools which are under the control of education committees, we do not think that the charging of fees in these schools is a sound principle. We would prefer those education committees to make a change, but we will not hold a pistol to their heads and say, "You will make a change, or else". We propose to make these changes, if we can by persuasion. We consider that these changes are desirable in the national interest.
What is concerned here is not the freedom to which the hon. Member has referred, but privilege. A number of the ways in which it expresses itself are well known to the House, but I will take an example which is, possibly, well known. Nowadays, the Public School List involves quite a number of schools which get public money as well as schools which are independent. Public schools in the wider sense have received money from a body called the Industrial Fund during the last few years. I have not had time to check its full title, but it is concerned with the strengthening of science departments in public and direct grant schools.
During recent years, those schools have received sums of money to strengthen, or sometimes to recreate their science departments, sums not of £5,000 or £10,000, but of £50,000, £100,000 and, in some cases, if my memory is right, twice that amount. They are enormous sums. Like so many of the privileges that these schools enjoy, this is an intelligent, sensible and, in many respects, admirable thing to do. All the major schools and a great many of the minor schools have benefited from it. But the State schools have had nothing like this kind of help. The Industrial Fund said, "Ministers ought to provide, as we are doing, for the schools under the State


system". Ministers have not, of course. This is privilege.
Let us take another example, that of the existence of the Public Schools Employment Bureau, an admirable institution in its own way. But what does it do that the ordinary local employment officers cannot? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) went to Eton a little while ago to address the boys there by invitation. He chose as his subject coal mining as a career. I am not aware that the Bureau managed to persuade many Etonians to go down the pits to work as a result of that speech. But it has its effects elsewhere.
This is a privilege. When the hon. Member talks about it simply in terms of the freedom of the parents, he is, of course, quite wrong and mistaken. Let us imagine someone in the position of the ordinary parent trying to put this freedom into effect—perhaps one of the hon. Member's constituents in West Aberdeenshire. Let us imagine, for instance, the local postman going to the hon. Member, as his Member of Parliament, for advice, trying to get his Member of Parliament to encourage or discourage him about sending his son to Fettes. The hon. Member would explain to the postman, "It will cost you only about £500 a year". The postman may think, "After all, the Postmaster-General is so generous to us that I shall have at least £1 or 30s. left to keep myself and the rest of my family". Freedom for the parent—nonsense! That is not the kind of phrase which is justified in the slightest.

The whole point about these institutions is that they were created so that the people who had money would be able to buy certain privileges for their children. There was a time in Scotland when the tradition of education was quite different. There was a time when, under the influence of John Knox, one thought of a school in every parish, and there was a time when that parish school attracted to it in the normal course of events the son of the laird as well as the son of the ploughman. I do not know what course the hon. Gentleman would want the education system in Scotland to follow in the future, but I can guess.

We want a return to the system in which the son of the laird goes to the same school as the son of the postman. The hon. Gentleman apparently wants to preserve the system arising largely out of the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by which when one has made money one can find various ways, including educational ways, for removing one's children from the ordinary ruck of competition. In so far as an education system is to have any effect of a social or sociological kind, any effect apart from the mental and moral training of the individual, we should prefer a system which has not a divisive effect on society but a unifying effect on it. For that reason, I oppose the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 129.

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[4.24 p.m.


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Crawley, Aidan
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Barter, John
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Green, Alan


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Grosvenor, Lord Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Gurden, Harold


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Dance, James
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Box, Donald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Braine, Bernard
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brewis, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Duncan, Sir James
Hastings, Stephen


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Burden, F. A.
Emery, Peter
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Errington, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Freeth, Denzil
Hocking, Philip N.


Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon, Quintin




Hollingworth, John
Maddan, Martin
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Hopkins, Alan
Maitland, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Russell, Sir Donald


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Seymour, Leslie


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mawby, Ray
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Jennings, J. C.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Montgomery, Fergus
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kimball, Marcus
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kirk, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kitson, Timothy
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Percival, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Leather, Sir Edwin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Miss Joan


Leavey, J. A.
Pitt, Dame Edith
Walker, Peter


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Lilley, F. J. p.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (SutnC'dfield)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Longbottom, Charles
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Loveys, Walter H.
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R- (Isle of Thanet)
Mr. Hendry and Mr. Anderson.


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hon. David





NOES


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paget, R. T.


Albu, Austen
Hayman, F. H.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Alldritt, W. H.
Healey, Dennis
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Peart, Frederick


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Hilton, A. V.
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Reid, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reynolds, G. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Short, Edward


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chapman, Donald
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.


Dempsey, James
McBride, N.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
McCann, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
Mclnnes, James
Stonehouse, John


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
McKay, John (wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon Nees (Carephilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stones, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)



Manuel, Archie
Swingler, Stephen


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foley, Maurice
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Watkins, Tudor


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E,


Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mulley, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Malcolm MacPherson and


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, B. K.
Mr. Hoy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Forbes Hendry, Mr. D. C. Anderson, Commander Donaldson, Miss Harvie Anderson, and Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND)

Bill to safeguard the position of independent schools in Scotland, and to protect the right of parents to freedom


of choice, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

DISABLED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (VEHICLES)

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce arrangements forthwith to supply, on the same basis of entitlement, workers in industry who have suffered serious disability arising out of and in the course of their employment with the same types of road vehicles as are now supplied to disabled ex-Service men.
Mr. Speaker, are you proposing to call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith)?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Howell: I am not prepared to accept the Amendment. It adds nothing to my Motion, it has no connection with it, and it has no bearing upon it. The Amendment is obviously in order, but it seeks to do something different from what the Motion seeks to do.
We often hear the expression "The luck of the draw". On this occasion I do not regard the luck of the draw as something personal. To me, this is the achievement of an ambition to leave the world a better place than I found it. This Motion is an example of British democracy, where the strong protect and look after the weak. It is an English characteristic that we even help lame dogs over stiles. I am certain that all able-bodied Members in the House would try to help an injured person, even though they had no first-aid qualifications for doing so. One of the things which has encouraged me enormously is that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have congratulated me not only on being successful in the Ballot, but on my choice of subject. I take some comfort from the fact that the House as a whole believes in protecting and helping those who need such help and protection.
I do not intend to attack the Government. I do not intend to attack individual Ministers as such. The fact is that a conglomeration of Ministers have a responsibility in this matter,

and that very few people know who bears the responsibility for making the final decision. Various Ministers have either a moral or a legal responsibility, and perhaps it might help those about whom I am concerned if I list the Ministers whom I regard as having a responsibility in the matter.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has a legal responsibility, because he is the sole custodian of the Industrial Injuries Act. As a trade union official, I was closely connected with the working of this Act before I came to the House. The Minister of Health also has a legal responsibility, under the National Health Service Act. The Minister of Labour has a moral responsibility, because the people about whom I am concerned should be his concern. He should be concerned with their welfare, not only when they are working, but, more important, when they cannot work, or when they have difficulty in getting to work. Finally, there is the Prime Minister himself, who presides over the Cabinet which decides Government policy. Later, I shall refer to the policy-making aspect of this problem.
The sting of the Motion is in the tail, because it calls on the Government to provide those who have suffered serious disability during the course of their employment
with the same types of road vehicles as are now supplied to disabled ex-Service men.
For a short period the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I do not like to be offensive to any hon. Member, let alone to the right hon. Lady, but I cannot for the life of me understand why she did not do something about this question when she was at the Ministry. Apart from the honour that was bestowed on her, she did not leave the Ministry with many medals. She would, however, have received a medal as big as a banjo from the miners and others in the condition to which I am drawing attention if she had done something to help them.
What the right hon. Lady seeks to do passes my comprehension. She seeks to
extend the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles.


As far as I am aware, everybody is included somewhere. The right hon. Lady proposes to extend the categories of people entitled to these vehicles, but, if her Amendment were accepted, they would be precluded from being supplied with motor cars. I am trying to ensure that these people are provided with motor cars as opposed to petrol-driven tricycles. I cannot, therefore, see the point of merely extending the categories of persons entitled to be supplied with invalid vehicles.
If any people have been forgotten she should have provided for them when she was in the Ministry, and not waited until an Opposition Member succeeded in the Ballot and brought the matter forward. In fact, the Government have been resisting the pleas of the T.U.C. and all the trade unions concerned year after year in connection with this matter.
When the T.U.C. went to the Minister of Pensions—the Minister who is specifically charged with responsibility under the Industrial Injuries Act, and who has the right, under Section 75 of that Act, to provide vehicles for disabled people—he declined to do anything, on the ground that this was the responsibility of the Minister of Health. This is the sort of thing that we were discussing earlier this afternoon, in connection with the rights of Members. One of the first things I learned when I came here was that we create Acts of Parliament, but other people interpret them—the judges, and so on. Interpretation is not for us. But it seems as though the Government interpret these Measures. It would seem that all Bills should contain the provision "subject to Cabinet approval, alteration or modification."
Although, under a certain Act, a Minister may be charged with responsibility, we often find that that responsibility has been transferred, as in the case of Questions this afternoon. Under Section 75 of the Industrial Injuries Act the Minister of Pensions is responsible for providing these vehicles, but we find that in reality the Minister of Health is responsible. He is taking on this job, on Government responsibility.
I do not think that any hon. Members opposite would want to sneer at the T.U.C., and think of it as a collection of

ignoramuses. It is a body of intelligent individuals. But the T.U.C. has been as puzzled as I have been on many occasions in trying to discover which Minister is responsible under the Act. I am no different from other hon. Members. I am not alone in having received a reply from a Minister to whom I have written saying, "Sorry, this is not my Department." This sort of thing must have happened to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The T.U.C. found themselves in some difficulty when they tried to do what I am trying to do today.
I have referred to the Industrial Injuries Act because the provisions of Section 25 can be implemented tomorrow if the Government so wish. There is no need for any amending regulations, or for any regulations at all. The necessary provisions are inherent in the existing Act of Parliament. If, in reply, the Minister says, "I cannot do this for the people about whom the hon. Member has been talking because other people will be left out if I do," I appeal to him to bring everybody in. Let them all come. They are all welcome, as injured people. These people are entitled not only to our sympathy, but to our help. We are told that a little help is worth a lot of sympathy. I am trying to provide it.
I am convinced that Section 75 gives the Government the right to act immediately. That is why the Motion contains the word "forthwith". It is an old railway trade union term meaning "immediately ". I do not know what the Scottish term is; I believe that it used to be "outwith". There will be no dubiety in anyone's mind that what I am after is the immediate implementation of existing provisions.
The T.U.C. wrote to the Minister of Pensions and was told that this was a matter for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Pensions deals with the Industrial Injuries Act and the Minister of Health with the National Health Service Act, yet both Ministers have the same conditions in their hands. The Minister of Health has been doing a very good job of work. I know of dozens of cases throughout Britain in which people have been given a new life by the provision of these vehicles.
But the first condition is that these people must be crippled, or must at least have lost the use, either temporarily or in considerable part, of both legs. Alady in my constituency has one of these motorised vehicles. Without it she is completely house-fast; she cannot get about at all. She tells me that with it she can do work with the W.V.S. and with the Girl Guides, and can lead practically a normal life. But without that vehicle she would not be able to do it. She would not be able to afford it. Here I wish to pay tribute to the generous way in which the Ministry of Health has been dealing with many of these cases.

Mr. Norman Cole: I am not unsympathetic to the principle of the Motion, but the position is a little complicated. I am here to be instructed. The hon. Member keeps referring to a vehicle. He might mean one or the other of two vehicles, with both of which we are familiar. Will he tell us whether he means a carriage or a motor car—because their allocation is made on different conditions.

Mr. Howell: I expected the hon. Member to support me. He is wrong in referring to two vehicles. There are three. The Act calls them appliances. It empowers the Minister to provide them. They can consist of two forms of invalid tricycle—motorised or electrically driven. I want there to be no mistake about this; I do not want to eliminate either the motorised or the electrically-driven tricycle. What I want the Government to do is to provide small motor cars where they will satisfy a particular need. Both the motorised tricycle and the electrically-driven tricycle have parts to play in this situation.
Yesterday, I drove through London with my wife. She said, "I do not know how anybody dares to drive through this traffic". She is not a good traveller. But if she were injured, and had lost the use of both legs, and needed a vehicle, she would never want a motor car. She would take an electrically-driven tricycle, because it moves at a slower speed. There may be times when, for physical or psychological reasons, the type of vehicle required is a slow moving one. In such a case it could be an electrically-driven vehicle.
On the other hand, there is the person who is entirely alone and independent and who does not want any help. We call such people stubborn, or even pigheaded. They would probably want the petrol-driven motorised tricycle.
On the other hand, there are people who need assistance to get out of a vehicle. With the exception of war disabled people no one is provided with a motor car. I want the numbers to be extended. I want everyone who could use it to the best advantage to be able to obtain a small motor car, but to get this Motion on the Order Paper I have had to refer only to the industrially disabled. The Minister of Health, according to provisions of Section 75 of the Industrial Injuries Act, must be entitled to provide vehicles. Surely he can say, "I concede this and I will put the matter into operation immediately."
I am not decrying tricycles. They have been used successfully and I am not asking that they should be taken away. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not tell me that motor cars supplied to the disabled have proved a failure. If he is unable to say that, why cannot their use be extended to everyone else? Heaven forbid that they should be taken away from the disabled. The Government might question the cost, but where does the money come from to supply war disabled people with their vehicles? I suggest that it comes from the War Pensions Fund.
The tricycles provided for patients under the National Health Service scheme are paid for under the scheme. Many of the industrial disabled were told during the war years that they were fighting on the home front and were serving their country in exactly the same way as if they had been in the fighting forces. I do not wish to decry the war disabled. I do not think we can do sufficient for them. But if the use of these cars by war disabled people has proved successful that is an additional argument for providing them for the use of the industrial disabled and everyone else.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Government. The present situation was decided before the Minister took office. I do not know whether he thinks that things cannot be changed. At first,


injured persons had invalid carriages which they could propel themselves and it was logical, with the evolution of mechanical transport, that petrol-driven and electrically-driven vehicles should be provided. Surely it is obvious that now we should think about giving them petrol-driven motor cars. Why does not the Minister do so? It cannot be lack of money, because there must be money which could be used under the provisions of the legislation for industry. We have been told that there is a large surplus.
The Minister told the T.U.C. that the provisions in the Industrial Injuries Act relate only to the provision of cash benefits. I do not think that that was ever intended. In my opinion, the wording of Section 75 is explicit and allows for the provision of appliances, etc. I would go so far as to say that the provisions of Section 75 would enable a Minister to use money for education and training so that accidents might be avoided. But if we are faced with the consequences of an accident we are under an obligation to provide the victim with the best appliance possible.
I do not know whether the Minister has up-to-date figures of how many people would be involved. I have done some research and the latest figures which I could find—they are 12 months old—indicate that 15,000 people use these vehicles and 2,500 of the vehicles are electrically driven. It is, therefore, fair to assume that very few people are enamoured of an electrically-driven invalid tricycle, or that 12,500 are petrol-driven.
I should give credit to the Minister because these people who have vehicles are provided with a shed in which to house the tricycle. Repairs and maintenance are carried out. The provision of 14 gallons of petrol affords some relief from the increase in the petrol tax. A National Health Service patient may have his motor car changed or adapted so that he can use the controls. But the Government are not too generous. The patient is allowed £70 once every five years, or he can have only one car in five years. That kind of allocation would not go down very well with those people who operate expense accounts and have a car every year. If the

patient decides that his tricycle does not allow him to be accompanied by his wife, and he wishes to have his own motor car, he has to return the tricycle and the shed. I imagine that a number of people have paid themselves for the adaptation of a motor car rather than lose the use of a tricycle for going to work. They can then use the car at weekends.
I feel that the previous experience of the Minister before he assumed his present office will make him sympathetic towards my argument. I hope that I am pushing at an open door, or, at any rate, one which is not locked. Like myself, the right hon. Gentleman would appear to be in good health. At least, we are ablebodied and ought to see what we can do for those who are less fortunate. Many people think that we should be giving these disabled people something for nothing if they were provided with a motor car so that they could go out accompanied by their wives. If a man is totally disabled he cannot lead a normal life.
We have only to ask ourselves how would we feel if we suddenly lost the use of both legs. Our normal lives would end. If a man can go out occasionally with his wife, at least he has a vestige of a normal life. We ought to provide him with an opportunity to carry out, to some extent, a normal life. If there is any criticism that if we give a motor car to a disabled person he will take his wife out in it, then all I can say is, "For heaven's sake, why not?" Many of the disabled need the assistance of their wives when they get out of a car. I could cite case after case, but I will refrain from doing so because of the lack of time. But I beg of the Minister to enable these people to have something like a normal family life.
There is also a psychological reason. If a man is seen anywhere with one of these tricycles he is identified immediately as a disabled person, but if he is seen in a mini-car no one thinks anything about it. Why should we brand these people as second-class citizens because they have something wrong with them? After all, when we see disfigured people, it is probably more of an embarrassment to us than it is to them. Therefore, both psychologically and sociologically everything is in favour of my


Motion that, where possible, we ought to supply the industrially disabled with exactly the same type of vehicle, and under the same conditions, as that supplied to the war disabled. What is good for one is good for another.
I am sure that no one in the war disabled class would want to consider himself as a privileged person. I am sure that they would all want the industrially disabled to have the same benefits that they are getting. I believe that 100 per cent. of them would say, "I cannot see any reason why anyone should be denied the right of a motor car such as we are getting".
What is the economic position? The basic cost of a mini-car is only £370 and, with conversion, it would cost probably another £40. The basic cost of a tricycle, according to the latest figures that I have, is approximately £325, so the difference is only £85, and that figure may have changed considerably during the last 12 months. To provide these people with the best would cost only another £85, and over a period of five to even 10 years the annual cost would be negligible.
I have been checking figures on the cost of maintenance. I find that in January, 1963, the Automobile Association published figures of the running costs of cars of less than 1,000 cc. The exact figures are £52 8s. a year. A month later, the Ministry of Health published the figures of the cost of maintenance of an invalid tricycle and the figures were £60, so the cost is £7 12s. more than for a small motor car.
Incidentally, I have not mentioned that the war disabled who have these motor cars get an allowance of £65. There is nothing in the Motion about that, but if the Minister of Health feels generous he can say, "I will not only give the hon. Gentleman what he is asking for, but give him something more". If he does that, he will have my best thanks.
Most of us, when we buy motor cars, have to consider the running costs. We know that there are small cars on the roads, today that would be adequate for the people who are crippled, and which run for 70 miles on a gallon of petrol. The cost would be reasonable, even with the price of petrol as it is today, including the terrific tax which the Government have put on it. I see no reason

why all invalid carriages, whether motor powered or electrically driven, should not be exempt from tax. We had a debate some time ago about C.D. plates. I understand that people genuinely entitled to C.D. plates do not pay any tax. They do not pay Income Tax. I do not want to stop that—there may be a good reason for it—but if they can have this privilege, why cannot people who are crippled be exempt from car tax?
I believe that some tricycles under 6 cwt. are tax free, but I do not know of any motor cars that are tax free. What I am seeking is that the right of the war disabled to have motor cars should be extended to the industrial disabled under Section 75 of the National Insurance (industrial Injuries) Act. I should be delighted if the Minister would say, "There are some who are outside that Act and I will include them all."
It may well be that there is a need for each of these types of vehicles—the motor car, the petrol-driven tricycle and the electrically-driven tricycle. I say that we should keep them all for those who need them, but I do not see any reason why we should restrict the benefit of the motor car to the war disabled, who have obviously proved the value of this type of vehicle. My Motion covers the existing Act of Parliament and it is for that reason that I use the argument in favour of the industrially disabled under the Act.
If there is anything in the British characteristic of helping those most in need, I would not say that these are the people in most need today, but I would say that they are the people who are in need of a facility which we in this House and the Government have the right already to give them. All I am asking is for the Minister of Health, on behalf of the Government, to accept that responsibility and extend the facility of a motor car to every disabled man or woman who needs one, so that he or she may become again a useful 100 per cent. citizen. Let us be proud of the scheme that we have created and which we could operate for the benefit of everyone.

5.10 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from


the first "to" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
extend the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles.
First I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on his good fortune in the Ballot and on choosing a subject which is of great general interest to both sides of this House. Although he said that he was not going to attack hon. Members on this side of the House, in the next sentence he attacked me. Perhaps I should remind him that since 1950 the number of pensioners' cars was very considerably increased by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and that I happened to be at the Ministry at that time.
We all have the greatest sympathy with people suffering from handicaps which limit their mobility and make it difficult for them to lead a normal life. I hope very sincerely that the Minister will be able to reconsider some of the present categories who have this provision and meet some of the pleas put forward from time to time on behalf of those who so far have fallen outside the provision of vehicles for disabled persons.
Where I differ from the hon. Member is that his Motion challenges, and quite violently challenges, the long-standing principle, widely accepted in this country, of the priority given to war service pensioners. Secondly, and of much greater significance—this is more particularly the reason why I have put down the Amendment—although the hon. Member has endeavoured to suggest that he would bring in everyone concerned, we shall have to vote on the Motion as it stands. As the Motion stands it would create a new and exclusive priority among one section of civilians, a priority which has not hitherto existed.
The hon. Member protested that he thinks that the priority given to war service pensioners to have cars is untenable, yet the Motion would hive off one section of the civilian population and give them priority over other civilians equally disabled even at the same time and in the same accident. He complained about people being branded. He was less than just to the record of this and previous Governments in their provision for disabled persons. We have very good reason

to be proud of our record over the years in providing vehicles for the disabled. To the best of my knowledge no other country in the world provides such comprehensive assistance in transport for the disabled as we do. In many countries the provision of vehicles is solely for war-disabled. No provision is made for civilian disabled. In practically every country the provision is far less generous, and certainly less comprehensive in maintenance and payments, than in this country. It is only fair to my right hon. Friend the Minister that this should be said.
In this country the old war pensioners' tricycle was replaced in 1948 by the then Labour Party Minister and a limited number of cars were supplied. The figure was then limited to 1,500 and it subsequently rose to 2,100. I think that it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who made the provision that all war pensioners who qualified should have a motorcar whereas otherwise they had been provided with an invalid tricycle. Of these cars, I think there are about 4,000 in circulation. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, for those who are not war pensioners there is a single-seater invalid tricycle.
I may be a little out-of-date in my figures. I think that the hon. Member said that he did not know how many war pensioners opted to have a tricycle rather than a car. In my days at the Ministry I think that the number was about as high as 10 per cent. Nevertheless, I think it important to recognise, as the hon. Member quite clearly admitted, that these vehicles are provided free of charge and are insured, licensed and maintained by the Government. The hon. Member very fairly mentioned the other facilities for storage and the like and the contribution for a certain quantity of petrol.
It should be borne in mind that the tricycle today is a very different creature from the open, far more frail vehicle which was in circulation in 1948. Many of the refinements found on modern motorcars have been incorporated in the specially designed vehicles for disabled drivers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on the intense work which has been done and the consistent surveys made to meet the particular needs of particular drivers and to tailor the vehicles to their use.
The hon. Member spoke about driving in London by a disabled person. I pay tribute to the very low accident rate of the drivers of invalid vehicles. I think that this stems from two reasons. The first is the driver's own care, caution and courtesy on the road. The second is that, apart from their own careful driving, there is an instinctive road courtesy and consideration shown to them by the ordinary road user. He may be hasty and ill-tempered in relation to the ordinary driver, but an instinctive courtesy is shown to those driving invalid vehicles. The "road hog" will roar past me, but he will quite happily and instinctively give way to the driver of an invalid vehicle.
I have always felt that the limited mobility and often slower reactions of disabled drivers is compensated for by the fact that they are identifiable and are, therefore, given courtesy and consideration by other drivers. This is one of the greatest protections which they have on the road. I have always opposed those who say that there should be no mark on the vehicle identifying it as belonging to a disabled person. This is one of the greatest protections they have, because instinctively other drivers give way to them and go out of their way to make their course safer.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr wants us to set aside, or to challenge, a tradition which, I think, is common to every country which has a war pensions scheme by which the war disabled have priority. I think that it has always been held that a man injured when fighting for his country, who probably has been sent to foreign climes, demands something over and above that which should be applied to the civilian. Secondly—and here I come to my chief reason for the Amendment—the Motion would mean that only those who are beneficiaries under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, and who are employed, would benefit by the application of the Motion if it were accepted.
There could be a case of two men similarly injured in the same accident, but differently classified in relation to employment. A younger man who was employed would get a car, but a self-employed man, perhaps with family responsibilities, would not get one. They might be victims of the same disaster, but they would be treated differently, and all

retired people would be excluded from this provision. However great our sympathies with the disabled, and whatever extensions are made to the service—I shall come to some extensions later which I hope my right hon. Friend will favourably consider—it cannot be right to divide the civilian population into categories which are such that the executive chairman gets a car but the local newsagent does not. That would be wrong in principle, and it would create the very situation among different sections of the community about which the hon. Member complained when he said that there should be no priority for war pensioners. The Motion seeks to provide two classifications of civilian pensioners.
I believe that there are 16,000 tricycles in service. However much we may wish to extend the provisions, as outlined in the Motion, the cost would be not inconsiderable. The hon. Member mentioned Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. I remember this from my days in the Ministry of Health and in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It was the provision put in as a stop gap in case there was a time lag between the coming into force of the National Health Service Act and of the new Industrial Injuries Act. In fact, it never had to be used and there never was that gap. We have explained this at many meetings with hon. Members and representatives of the T.U.C. and others at Ministry conferences.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Would the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the T.U.C. ever agreed with her in that interpretation?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I did not have to wait for agreement because the interpretation had long been given by hon. Members opposite when they were in office. The provision was included and explained at that time as a provision to meet a need if the National Health Service Act were not passed in time.

Mr. Howell: I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not want to mislead the House, but she has not left the Ministry all that long, and I understand that the T.U.C. has been back to the Ministry every year and has disagreed with this interpretation. The T.U.C. has claimed that Section


75 gives the Government the right to provide appliances. The right hon. Lady said that we must stick to the words of my Motion when we debate it. She must stick to the words of the Industrial Injuries Act. Irrespective of why it was done, the words were put in the Act.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman misinterpreted what I said. I have never denied that the Section in the Act could be used in the manner which he suggests. I said that it was put there merely as a stop-gap to cover what was always intended to be covered by the National Health Service when it came into operation. It was a Government of the present Opposition who provided that these vehicles should come under the National Health Service and that payment for them should come undr the National Health Service rather than under the Industrial Injuries Act.
This cannot be the limited problem which the hon. Member suggested it to be. First of all, there are 16,000 current users. It is true that not all of them would opt for a car, but many people who have not applied for a tricycle, because they themselves run a car, would, naturally and quite rightly, opt to have a free car rather than one for which they themselves pay. The number would be correspondingly increased.
There are also those who have not a tricycle because they cannot control it. They would immediately opt for a car where they could have a nominated driver, as is a right under the regulations for war service disabled. The demand might well run into double the 16,000 vehicles we have at the moment. The Minister undoubtedly gets a special contract price for these vehicles, but we should be grateful if he would give us some idea of the cost of the proposals in the Motion.
I know that the cause of the disabled person demands our greatest sympathy, but the very substantial commitment which would result from the Motion changes two long-established principles. The hon. Member describes the provision for war pensioners as an anomaly, but his Motion merely creates another anomaly. We must bear in mind that there are many disabled people with equally serious claims on the service.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am not clear about the right hon. Lady's intentions. Does she intend to include those who are mentioned in the Motion as well as some others, or does she intend to exclude some of those mentioned in the Motion?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am about to come to the additions which I should like my right hon. Friend to make and which I think at this point it would be fair to ask him to make. I will not keep the hon. and learned Gentleman long in suspense.
There are many disabled people with equally serious claims who are quite incapable of using a vehicle of any kind. We have to weigh up the claims of these people against the considerable cost which would arise in respect of a comparatively limited number of people who, I believe, at present are not unreasonably provided for by the service given by the Ministry. It is important that we should bear their needs in mind. If the requests made in the Motion would involve very substantial costs, then we must consider whether we are justified in allocating this amount of money solely to a section of the community already not badly provided for.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider adding some classifications which so far do not come under the provisions for those entitled to a free vehicle. These have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House in debates in the past. Some of these concessions would alleviate a great deal of hardship.
I have in mind those people who are very seriously disabled, but who have not lost their limbs. Because they have not a locomotive disability so as to fall into that exact classification in the strict sense, they are not included in the scheme at present. There are people with serious heart or lung affections which make any extensive exertion very hazardous. They do not qualify for a vehicle because they are not limbless, they are not paraplegic; they do not come within the classification which justifies their being provided with a vehicle. Would my right hon. Friend look again at the categories which qualify for invalid vehicles to see whether they could be extended to those who, on medical evidence, are warned


against the exercise of walking and who, at the moment, cannot obtain a vehicle under the present classification?
Similarly, there are many people who are so incapacitated that they have not the physical capacity to drive a car. Many of them are provided in their homes with a wheel chair; they are either pushed around or they wheel themselves around. But these people are in an even worse position than those who are capable of using a vehicle, because they cannot get out even into the garden unless somebody pushes them there.
Would my right hon. Friend consider whether these people should have the use of a small electrically or mechanically-propelled chair if they are not capable of handling a car or tricycle? This would at least enable them to go around their homes, out into the garden and even along the street, although they could not go further afield because they could not have a car. Could not my right hon. Friend extend the category to people often more severely handicapped than those who at present are given a vehicle, or, in the case of the war pensioner, are given a car?

Mr. Mitchison: I have listened to the hon. Lady with great attention and with much sympathy, but I have not yet got it clear in my mind. Does she intend to include by her Amendment all the people mentioned in the Motion, or does she intend to cut down the number in some way, even including, perhaps, some other category?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I do not accept the category laid down in the Motion, because it would create a one-sided priority among civilians. I am suggesting, however, that my right hon. Friend should increase the overall types of civilians or pensioners in certain categories. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but I am asking for specific concessions which I think are reasonable and which are, in fact, not covered by the hon. Gentleman's Motion. I am asking for new categories, but I do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman does in his desire to provide priority classes.
There have been very few cases where both the man and wife are injured, but there are some such cases and I have

had experience of some of them. In cases where both the husband and wife are injured—I am thinking particularly of a case resulting from war injury—and where both have their own vehicle, could not my right hon. Friend stretch a point and let them have a car instead of two vehicles? Of course, they should have the option because it might be very important in some cases, particularly if they are both in employment, that they should retain their own individual transport.
I cannot believe that it would cost more to provide one vehicle instead of two. I think that these are commonsense proposals which would not involve vast additional expense, and I ask my right hon. Friend favourably to consider them.
In conclusion, I would again like to thank the hon. Member for Perry Barr for giving us the opportunity of this debate, although I strongly differ from him in his division of the priorities. I would also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessors on the very full and comprehensive service which is given to the disabled in this category and the constant research which I know goes on to keep these vehicles up-to-date. I say frankly that I am one of those who has—and I say this quite unashamedly—no quibble about the priority given to war pensioners, and that I particularly deprecate the splitting of the civilian population into a priority and a non-priority class which would result from the passing of the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I will occupy the time of the House for only a short while. This is the fourth or fifth debate of this nature since 1951 in which I have taken part. The Minister has been warned time after time that there would be no peace in the House until justice was done to the paraplegics. The right hon. Gentleman has been warned that the matter will be raised time and time again until we have met the obvious need of those who suffer in this special way.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on his speech and on having covered the ground in so comprehensive a way as to leave very little else for the rest of us to say. I


was astonished at the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith), who moved the Amendment and who has made it quite clear that she is against two-seater cars being provided for the paraplegics.
The hon. Lady objects to them having these cars on the ground that it would create a new priority. But we already create priorities. Of course, we cannot give all these people two-seater cars on the same day. There has to be some order about it. When these cars were first introduced for the war disabled it was then understood that they were category No. 1, that category No. 2 would have to be decided on and then category No. 3. I should have thought that that was the thinnest excuse on which to move the Amendment to the Motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
No hon. Member who represents a mining constituency in the House can be satisfied to leave this question until those disabled men in the mining industry get as reasonable facilities and amenities as this country can give them. The right hon. Lady talked about the division that would be created, but what about the soldiers who were combed out during the war and sent back to work in the pits and who then received their injuries in the pits? They became paraplegics. Had they remained in the Army and received injury they would have been provided with two-seater cars in precisely the same circumstances, but because they were working in the pits they were not entitled to receive them.
How about the firemen in the London blitz? How about all such categories? In providing two-seater cars for the disabled pensioner we created a category, and whatever we do, in any circumstances, we have to decide the order of priorities for these facilities. I have seen the paraplegics in the mining industry in South Wales. There are over 100 of them gathered together at Porthcawl. These are men who served their country. Many of them were sent back to the pits to produce the fuel needed for carrying on the war. They were not there of their own choice. They were sent back by their commanding officers. Yet these men are denied the facilities made available to their erstwhile comrades and who received exactly the same sort of disability on actual war service.
I received a letter—which is really the only reason for my intervening in the debate—which emphasises the tragedy of these people. The letter states:
On behalf of all disabled war cripples may I thank you for your grand fight to get us cars instead of these beastly little motor tricycles—they shake us to pieces. I was stuck on the side of the road when a lorry backed into me. He could not see me and I could not get out of his way. I fell into a deep ditch and might have been there all night only a van had taken the wrong lane and found me. A third time I started to go to the doctor at 8 a.m. and on the way back the engine failed me and I did not get home until after 6 p.m., wet through, and only the kindness of strangers got me home then. These all happened to me in only a short time and could all have been avoided if I could have had someone with me. Many of my crippled friends could tell you of worse things that have happened to them.
I would like to say this to the right hon. Lady. I know that she is not short of the milk of human kindness. We in this House know her virtues, and also, if I may say so, her shortcomings—politically anyhow.
There is a young man in my constituency who is just 25. He is single. He is courting. Every time he goes out he has to go out by himself. It is a tragedy for him that all his social life must be either in the house or when he goes out alone. We should be providing two-seater cars for people in this condition, if we call ourselves a civilised nation.
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will promise us tonight. He may promise something which the Labour Party will have to implement later. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who has done as much for disabled people as any Member of the House, to give an undertaking when he intervenes that, if the Tory Government do not do something for paraplegics, the Labour Party when it is swept to power will see that it is one of its earliest Measures. Unless we do that, we are hypocrites. We must not ask the Tory Government to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves when we get the power.
I leave it with the Minister in this way. Do not make this another electioneering stunt. This question is too deep a human question to be made the sport of politics. If the Minister can do something, let him do it. If he cannot, the sooner the Tories are out of office and


people who are prepared to act are in power, the better it will be for injured people.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Sympathy has been expressed which I am sure is shared by every Member of the House. No Member of Parliament who sees these people in his "surgery" and talks to them can help being deeply moved. He must also understand the desire that they should have vehicles in which they can take out their families. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) has considerable experience of this matter in his trade union activities.
I believe I am not speaking out of turn when I say that the Motion is a peg on which to hang a hat. I know that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is suggesting that everyone should be given a motor car, if possible. I bear that in mind in my next few remarks. It is perhaps worth our while to think for a moment or two of the difficulties involved in legislating piecemeal. If the Motion were accepted, there would be considerable anomalies between one man and another. Many other categories than industrial workers could have been used, and more profitably, to help the paraplegic, although it might not have been easy to move a Motion on the subject.
It is clear that the married man with a family is in an infinitely worse position than the single man. The older man may be in a worse position. On these grounds there might be justification for giving priority to married men rather than to those hurt in industrial accidents. Those injured in industrial accidents are not necessarily those who end up the worst off. It is perhaps not a sympathetic argument, but it is worth remembering that most paraplegics ex-industry have probably hurt their backs either by falling or through something falling on them. I know that I am generalising, but these people can normally satisfy the courts that there has been negligence on the part of their employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I admit that this is not so in every case.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: It is necessary to know the facts.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene for his education. A claim will not be conceded unless the plaintiff can prove that his employer was negligent.

Mr. Miscampbell: I am well aware of that. I add to my Parliamentary salary by trying to convince the courts of just what the hon. Gentleman has told me. I do not want to take this too far, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in most cases—not in all cases, as I know only too well—when something has fallen on a man or when he has fallen he can get compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will not take it too far, because I am not arguing with hon. Members opposite on that point.
My point; is that with individual categories such as industrial workers one runs into situations of incredible anomaly. I go one stage further and say that in cases where there has been an industrial accident and where the injured men have convinced the courts that there was negligence the awards now being given are substantial. These are not necessarily the people who will be worst off. If this is conceded, faced with the difficulties of legislating piecemeal, one must decide whether every paraplegic, regardless of whether his condition arose from an industrial injury—no matter how it arose—should be entitled to a motor car. This may well be the argument.
If there are 15,000 paraplegics or people entitled to a car at present, and if nominated drivers were to be allowed, we might well be facing between 30,000 and 35,000 potential vehicles. Not everyone will decide to have a vehicle. Perhaps 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. will decide to nave one for convenience. There will also be those who have in the past provided their own cars. It may well be right to make a change now and say that everyone can have one. We all sympathise with the Minister who, faced with this demand, says that there are other ways in which the money could be spent more profitably. This is an argument on which the Minister must make us his own mind.
If it is not possible to let everyone have a vehicle, what amelioration should be offered today? What can one suggest the Minister might do without going as


far as that? One step which should be taken is to say that men capable or earning sufficient money to provide a car of their own—

Mr. Mendelson: We seem to be having the same difficulty with the hon. Gentleman as we had with the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith). Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House clearly whether he opposes the Motion?

Mr. Miscampbell: Certainly. If there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby in support of my right hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Will he tell the House clearly whether he is opposed to those who have been injured at work being included in the new category for this benefit?

Mr. Miscampbell: One knows very well that that is not a fair question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In arguing this matter in the House today it is not necessary to take up the position, which we would all agree would be intolerable, of saying that they are not entitled. What we are entitled to ask is this. Are we to decide today to give a vehicle to everybody? It may well be right for the Government to say that they do not consider that the time has yet come when they can give a vehicle to everybody.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): Will the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) tell the House whether he proposes to support the Amendment?

Mr. Mendelson: If the Chair will allow me to make my intervention, I will do so. Before I answer any questions, the hon. Member who has the Floor must answer his questions.

Mr. Miscampbell: I do not want to delay the House. I had thought at one time that it might be a partial help—a step in the right direction—if those who provided their own motor cars were given, not just the money to convert them to make them suitable for their own driving capacity, but might be given the whole cost of the vehicle. I realised, on considering this further, that that would probably create more anomalies

than it would cure, because it would be tantamount to saying that those injured but still able to drive a car would be given that sum of money while those injured but unable to drive a car would get nothing. That would not be a satisfactory or even a partial solution to the problem.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot immediately answer all the questions put to him, but I hope that he will consider the possibility of the construction of three-wheeled vehicles capable of carrying two people. Such a conversion of a number of three-wheelers might be possible, otherwise I accept that it may not be possible for my right hon. Friend to concede all the requests being made by hon. Members. However, I hope that he will look sympathetically at the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: The House is discussing a praiseworthy Motion which gives rise to great human problems. We are dealing not with numbers and statistics but with people, human beings, who, through war injury, industrial injury or congenital disability, need our help.
It should be remembered that acceptance and implementation of the Motion would bring an end to all discrimination in this sphere, although it would minimise it. When I read the terms of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) I had some sympathy for it, but having listened to her remarks I regret to say that it is not designed to achieve what I thought was its aim. I submit that, whatever she has in mind, her Amendment would include only one or two further categories but would not solve the problem.
As I say, acceptance of the Motion would not end discrimination, but it would give greater freedom from isolation and boredom to a large number of people who at present are so immobile that they cannot go about with their relatives and friends and are deprived of the pleasure of even seeing the countryside. For these and many other reasons—which I could put forward if time permitted, but other hon. Members wish


to speak—this should be regarded as an important human problem and we should give all the help at our disposal to these injured people.
I have been impressed by the information which hon. Members have received from a committee which is interested in the mobility of the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) submitted an unanswerable case why the Motion should have universal support and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) raised an important matter, not for the first time, concerning the mining industry. For many years Motions have appeared on the Order Paper about the problem discussed by my right hon. Friend, but despite this and despite dozens of Questions put to Ministers we have received no satisfactory answer why this provision should not be extended to other disabled people.
Anxiety on this issue has been expressed not only in the House but throughout the country, and this matter has been the preoccupation of many organisations representing heavy industry, particularly mining, where there is a high incidence of accidents. It is interesting to note that although there are 24 million insured workers in Britain and although there are only half a million people employed in the mining industry, of all the reportable accidents which occur, one-third of them take place in mining. Is it any wonder that people like my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and others who represent and are interested in mining areas should feel keenly on this subject and are impatient for something tangible to be done?
It is equally interesting to note what is stated in Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. I do not accept the case adduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst, but she might be interested in these words which appear in that Section:
The Minister may make arrangements to secure the provision and maintenance, free of charge or at a reduced charge of equipment"—
I take it that that could be interpreted to mean motor cars—
and appliances for any person who, by reason

of the loss of limb or otherwise, is in need of them as a result of any injury or disease against which he was insured under this Act … Any expenses incurred by the Minister under any such arrangements or otherwise under this section shall be paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I do not want to be misrepresented on this issue. I am not denying that that Section of the Act might possibly be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I was saying that at the time of the passage of the National Health Act the fear was expressed that because of lapsed legislation there would be no machinery, until it was set up, by which the Ministry of Health would be able to provide these appliances.
It was always the intention—and this is on the record in the words of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office—that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, should proceed on the basis that it was designed to provide cash benefits but would not normally be responsible for providing the physical pieces of equipment which it was always intended should ultimately be provided by the Ministry itself. That is on record in the words of Ministers of both parties. As I say, I am not denying that what the hon. Gentleman says might apply if the Section were used in that way, but the Ministry has always operated the vehicles side of this.

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Lady is now moving her ground. She is now saying exactly the opposite to what she said originally. As I understood her, she was trying to tell the House that Section 75 was there to fill the gap between the operation of the National Health Service Act and the Industrial Injuries Act. Now she changes her ground. It was always anticipated, and the anticipation became a reality, that those Acts and the National Insurance Act should all come into operation on one day in July, 1948. Although 16 years have elapsed, very little if anything at all has been done about Section 75. It is true that it is an optional Section, but this Minister and his predecessors have failed to take any steps to operate this permissive Section.
Last Monday, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a number of Questions from both sides of the House, said that


he would make a statement on this subject before the Summer Recess, and I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. N. Edwards) in the hope that the Minister will make mat statement tonight. This is his last chance in this Parliament, and if he does not make the statement now his promise of last Monday will not be kept.
Replying on the same day to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), the Minister denied the accusation that he was procrastinating, but the fact is that 13 years is a very long time for a Government not to do anything in such a matter as this, and I make a sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Over many years, I and many of my hon. Friends have seen so much suffering, so much frustration resulting from immobility—the inability to get about, and take pleasure in things in the countryside, and the like—and we know that the final point of frustration has almost been reached. I hope that at this late stage the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that something is to be done.
I shall support the Motion. I do not propose to support the Amendment. What I would really like to see is provision made for all severely disabled people, whether their disability arises from war service, industrial occupation, sickness, disease, or is congenital. I am in favour of a universal application.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) for tabling this Motion. I know something of the personal physical experience to which he refers, and it taught me a lot of the background, and of the regulations and parts of Acts that make up the whole picture. The hon. Member has obviously done a lot of research, and I am grateful to him for his information.
I have been somewhat bewildered during the course of this debate, because we all seem to want the same tiling. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) has just said that he wants to see these facilities extended to all who have need for them. The hon. Member for Perry Barr and others have expressed the same view, with which I entirely

agree. Therefore, whatever side of the Chamber we may sit on, we are all pushing as hard as we can at the same door.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Perry Barr must not deny those of us on this side the right to show our sympathy in our own way. There is no special perquisite of expressing sympathy in such a matter as this. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends think that the best way to move the Government is to put down a Motion specifically giving priority to industrially injured people. We, on our side, are equally keen on what he is trying to do, but want something more comprehensive. In this matter, it is the House of Commons that is speaking, not any hon. Member, where-ever he may sit, and whatever results from the vote at seven o'clock will be a Motion from the House of Commons that the Government should take some action.
We think that the broader action asked for in the Amendment is more appropriate to action by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The hon. Member for Perry Barr thinks that his specific mention is the better way, but, with all respect to him—and I have had the pleasure of his acquaintance over many years—I believe that he is wrong. Specific mentions are not always appropriate in the House of Commons. It is sometimes better to give members of the Government a nudge.
A further point is that we do not want too late to explain to the many others why they are not included in this specific mention. The Motion is quite specific, and leaves out quite a number of categories. Therefore, though I have the same reasons and the same motivation as the hon. Member, I prefer the Amendment. The power to do something is contained in the various Acts. All that is needed is the will of the Government, and I think that the Amendment presents the best way of saying how we think that will should be exerted.
I imagine that my right hon. Friend deals with this subject on behalf of various Government Departments because it is a medical matter, and I pay particular tribute to the members of his Department, and especially to those in the regions, with whom I have had many


contacts over the last 13 or 14 years. I have always found them sympathetic and helpful, and I pay tribute to them on behalf of those of my constituents who have benefited from their work.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Perry Barr I kept in view the fine tricycles which are now issued. I inspected one a fortnight ago. The user was full of praise for it. He thought that it was a grand machine. In the debate today I asked myself why these machines were so easily and specifically identified, because none of us wants to be distinguished from others by reason of a disability. I was prepared to ask my right hon. Friend to make them more like the three-wheeled vehicles which are in commercial production, but I then heard the point made in the debate that this identification of the vehicle helped other people to give the users some special courtesy on the road because they recognised not the driver, but the vehicle.
I should like to see my right hon. Friend conduct researches into the possibility of producing a more commercial type of vehicle and offer it to these people, because every man in liberty is entitled to his own psychology. The would-be user could be asked then whether he wished to have a vehicle which would be distinguishable on the road and thereby would give him a better chance to drive, or whether he preferred a commercial-type vehicle and to take his chance with thousands of similar vehicles on the roads. I know that there are some invalids who do not like to be so recognised, but there are others who do not mind and would be only too pleased to have special courtesy extended to them.
When I was talking to my constituent he said that it was a great pity that these three-wheeled vehicles are not quite wide enough to take a passenger. He said that there was just room for a slim passenger, but he was not supposed to take another person with him. There may be good reasons for this. I do not know the background, but if my right hon. Friend could do something to enable people who so wished to take a passenger with them it would be a reasonable thing to do and it would give great happiness to some users of these vehicles. If the present regulation is based on common sense, so be it, but if it is based

on an archaic tradition let us take it apart and see whether it serves any useful purpose.
There has been talk in the debate about priorities and this is the whole point. We on this side are endeavouring to apply the only priority and that is the physical one. We cannot supply everybody immediately and at the same moment. This is the only priority which the Amendment would apply. The Motion would apply a priority restricted to a non-comprehensive class of society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) said that when she was in office one-tenth of the people who were entitled to have motor cars did not have them because they did not feel able to drive them. I hope that we shall keep that door open. It is quite understandable that in these days people might not wish to drive a car. Even some abled-bodied people have no desire to do so. I hope that those who prefer to have a three-wheeled vehicle as distinct from a four-wheeled car will be allowed to have their choice.
If my right hon. Friend feels that he can extend the opportunity of obtaining one of these vehicles to everyone who is disabled, from whatever cause, whether he is an employee or self-employed, ex-war or ex-industry, he will have my full support. In passing, I would make one point of criticism. I have had cause recently to make a reference to it in the House. It is that it is peculiar that at this time there should still be categories of people who, for some technical reason, are not entitled to full benefit from the Government although they are disabled. We should take a more absolute line about this. What matters to a disabled man and what should matter to us is simply that he is disabled, from whatever cause. To extend benefits to all may not be good business and probably is not good government, but it certainly is the right kind of attitude to take. I shall vote for the Amendment because I consider that the greater includes the less and where the less, speaking in terms of numbers, provides an invidious distinction it is important for us in giving instruction to the Government to make that instruction as comprehensive as possible and not make it apply specifically to one section of society.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I have to declare at the outset that I have a vested interest in this subject. My brother who suffers from some form of sclerosis is using a tricycle and he has found it the most convenient form of vehicle, but we must bear in mind that whilst it may be convenient for the individual it certainly does not fulfil all requirements in the matter of family life. I must come out forthwith in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) in his reference to the paraplegics, who are an army of mostly young men who have made great sacrifices.
My right hon. Friend mentioned their loneliness, but he failed to mention that their ability to procreate is completely gone and that it is essential in order to maintain the family life that when one of these young men goes out in the country or goes on holiday he should be provided with a vehicle that will enable man and wife to travel together. I was instrumental at one time in obtaining a vehicle for a young man. This opened a new world to him. He was able to mix in society and eventually to make a good living for himself. If there must be a priority in the provision of these vehicles I shall support the paraplegics, but we must also bear in mind those who are suffering from some form of sclerosis, from arthritis and from similar diseases.
It is argued that it is no more expensive to provide a vehicle which will carry two persons than it is to provide a vehicle for one person. If that is so and no question of economics arises, I cannot understand why the Minister is not more forthright. He represents a constituency in which there are a few paraplegics. I am aware of the arguments on both sides about the motorised tricycle and the motor car which will carry two persons, and if the difference in cost between the two is as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) I cannot understand what we are arguing about.
If we can spend or waste millions on such things as Blue Streak, why cannot we enable a section of the community to live the full life to which it is entitled? We have our priorities, but my heart goes out to all those people who are unable to get out and live a full married life.

I hope the Minister will consider these representations and that he will take some action. It is a pity that we have to divide on an issue like this. It is a scandal to the House that we should have to divide. However, we must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr for bringing forward this issue because we have been enabled to ventilate our views.
I trust that the Minister will be forthright and will be willing to meet the wishes expressed not just on one side of the House but on both sides, because this is a great human problem which must be resolved.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I heartily welcome this opportunity of congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on the able and sincere manner in which he stressed the need to provide motor cars for the disabled.
This is, of course, a human problem and, as one who has had considerable experience in the mining industry, I know of many tragic cases of persons who have sustained injuries resulting in partial paralysis. In the mining industry there are about 400 of these men who travel about in one-seater tricycles. They have to travel alone. They cannot take their wives or other members of their families.
This applies not only to the mining industry. There are many other industries, including the engineering and railway industries, in which men have become disabled. Many men have become paraplegic as the result of accidents arising in the course of their employment. They are unable to get about accompanied by their wives or children, unless they have a car. Many of these are comparatively young family men, and, unless the Government give them some hope, they are condemned to travel alone, in circumstances which, in my opinion, cannot be justified.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has referred to some cases. I can quote a number of other cases, particularly from the mining industry. One has written saying:
I hope, dear sirs, that you will be able to end this tragic loneliness.


Another says:
I have had to travel alone and if anything goes wrong I have to depend on strangers.
I could quote many other cases. There is something wrong and tragic about the situation in this age of scientific and social progress.
We have had excuses. The hon. Mem-Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) made excuses. He introduced the question of damages at common law. He said that some men are able to claim damages and get money. In how many cases does that occur? I tell the hon. Member for Blackpool, North that the bulk of the men that T refer to in the mining industry have sustained their accidents by a fall of roof, where negligence could not be proved. These men ran the danger of coal-getting underground and now they are half paralysed. Their hope has gone. All their ambitions, the life to which they looked forward and the education of their children have gone because of a fall of roof.
What can be said of the mining industry can be said of others. Paraplegia does not happen just to the man. It happens to his family as well. The whole of the family life is affected. The wife's whole outlook is changed. The income falls and the whole future has gone. We cannot pay too high a tribute to the wives, mothers and others who in so many cases display patience, tolerance and devotion to their menfolk. I know from experience what happens. A man has an accident. He is shocked and appalled by his condition. He is told that he will never be able to get about again unless he has a car or tricycle. He is distressed. He looks at his grim future. He is not only depressed. Often he can be very annoyed. It is only after a time, when he comes out of hospital and sees his wife and parents, that he starts to become accustomed to his condition. He makes the best of it. That is the time when a car would be so handy and beneficial. That is the very time when it could create happiness and comfort so necessary to an injured man.
I hope the Minister will be able to give a favourable decision and will not continue to deprive these paraplegic ex-miners and others of a motor car so that they and their wives can go out

together. Quite apart from the question of happiness, the provision of a car would dispel a lot of worry and anxiety on the part of the wives. Sometimes a man goes out in a tricycle; it breaks down and he is a long time getting home. The wife worries about him. There are frequent breakdowns of this sort. I know of several in my own constituency. Bus drivers have had to pull up because of a stationary tricycle. The man in the tricycle cannot get out, and the traffic is held up.
I therefore hope that we shall get a more favourable reply in this debate. We have raised the matter time and again over many years. I think we raised it as far back as 1951 or 1952. Indeed, we have done more than that. The miners have said, "To assist our own people we will make a contribution for ex-miners if you, the Government, will help to maintain them. So keen are we that we will contribute to the extent of 50 per cent." I believe I am right in saying that that offer was made as far back as 1952, but there has been no response.
The Minister said in his reply on Monday of last week that he hoped very soon to review the whole position. But this issue has been debated in the House since 1952, before the present Minister was in office. We have been debating it all these years and now we are told that we shall very soon have a review of the position.

Mr. Barber: Either there was a mistake in HANSARD, which I think is unlikely because I read it, or the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. What I said was that we had almost completed the review that we were making.

Mr. Finch: They have almost completed the review. All I can say is that, on a matter of this kind, it is still too long to have taken until today to complete a review of this most important human problem.
On the question of cost, the Minister knows that tricycles are not as reliable as cars and they require more attention. Tricycles are not so well sprung. Their maintenance is very much a specialised business and there are long delays in getting repairs carried out. Initially, a small car might cost another £80 more than a


tricycle, but what is the true position as regards comparative cost? A car lasts much longer than a tricycle. A small car might well be cheaper in the long run. I am fairly certain that it would be found that the cost of maintaining cars would be smaller than the cost of maintaining tricycles.
What is the issue? Small cars have proved satisfactory to paraplegic ex-Service men, and there has been little or no complaint about them. The cars have worked well for disabled ex-Service men. Why should there be this discrimination? We welcomed the decision to supply motor cars to ex-Service men, who deserve all the facilities we can give, but why the discrimination towards the injured miner or the man injured in industry?
The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) is, I suggest, confused on this issue. Her Amendment does not really express what I hope she intended, and she and her hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) do not quite agree with one another. The hon. Gentleman said that he wished to include all paralysed people in this provision, but the right hon Lady did not say so and her Amendment does not say so If it did, we should agree with her We are quite prepared to agree that what we suggest should apply to all paraplegics, but the Amendment refers only to
the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles.
What does that mean? In this debate we are referring to the provision of motor cars for paraplegic people who can use them We want this provision so that disabled people, if they so desire and are able to use them, may have cars to help them in their lives, but the Amendment does not suggest that, and we have not been assured by the right hon Lady that she means to include provision for the industrially disabled.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South said that he wanted all paraplegics to be included, but the right hon. Lady did not say that. If we could have her assurance that that is what she really means, we should have no objection and would urge the Minister to accept it.
Already, by Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, there is power for the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to provide these cars. It could have been done long ago. That Section has never been used. What is the obstacle—money? I have already said that this is a matter of the happiness of the injured man and his family, and it would not cost as much as some hon. Members would lead us to believe. It is something which could well be done now. It has always seemed to me that Section 75 could be used. The Minister of Health, from his point of view, could say that his Ministry would operate it for a man who has a road accident, who has suffered from polio or from some other disability from natural causes. On the industrial injuries side, it could be used similarly to produce the desired result. Why the delay and the difficulty?
There is £288 million or more in the Industrial Injuries Fund now, and what we suggest would put no heavy burden on the Fund. We shall be interested to hear from the Minister exactly what the cost to the Fund would be to do as we suggest. May we have some idea of the cost for those who would come under the Minister of Health himself? There are the two categories. I am surprised that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has not used his powers under the Act long ago and that the Minister of Health, for his part, has not put a similar scheme into operation.
That is our case. We say that, after all these years, the time has come to provide these people with motor cars. If hon. Members opposite say that we should include all paraplegics, we quite agree. If the Minister agrees, let the whole House agree and let us get on with the job. We want the Minister's assurance this evening that something will be done forthwith. We are not concerned about political advantage. This is too great a human problem for political tactics. These men urgently need motor cars, and we beg the Minister to give us a favourable decision. But I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly that, if he does not, we on this side will do all in our power to see to it that paraplegics, the industrially injured and others, are provided as soon as possible


with motor cars to give them the happiness and contentment which they deserve after sustaining accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment.

6.36 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): Of all the various matters which may be raised on a private Member's Motion, and which concern my responsibilities, I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) there is none which evokes more sympathy or concern than the provision of vehicles for those who are disabled. Perhaps I may add, as a result of what I have learned only in the past day or two, that there are few people more entitled to speak on this subject than the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience.
In a sense, this is just one more facet of the problem which will always be with us, the problem of priorities and deciding where best we can direct the resources which are available and which, we must all recognise, will never be sufficient to do all we want to do. As our resources expand and enable us to do more, so our aims and ideals become more ambitious. It is one of the facts of life in a civilised society that compassion for those in need will always outstrip what can be done.
As the House knows, and as the hon. Gentleman will, I hope, agree after my intervention a few minutes ago, I have for some time been reviewing the provision of invalid vehicles for the disabled. This review has taken a considerable time, longer than I had hoped. It is a much more complex subject than many people realise. It is relatively easy to say in general terms what one would like to do, but it is not at all easy to decide what one ought to do, bearing in mind the needs of hosts of other people who are physically or mentally ill and who require and deserve more help of one kind or another.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on his speech. In a few minutes, I shall have some proposals to put before the House, but, first, let me explain why I cannot advise the House to accept the Motion. The object of the Motion is to provide motor cars

instead of the existing invalid tricycles for those men and women in industry who, in the words of the Motion,
have suffered serious disability arising out of and in the course of their employment.".
As the hon. Member for Bedwellty said, Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 gives the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance power to secure the provision of equipment and appliances for any person who needs them in consequence of an injury or disease against which he was insured under the Act. The hon. Member for Bedwellty said, "The Act is there. Why not use it?". I recognise that there were questions of priority in those days, but it is fair to point out that the Act was there in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951. I agree with the view taken by the Labour Government at that time not to invoke it, but, nevertheless, it is a point to make that the Act was passed in 1946.
Time and again in the past, Ministers have pointed out that this Section of the Act was designed merely as a safeguard against the possibility, which did not materialise, that there might be a gap in time between the beginning of the Industrial Injuries Act and the National Health Service Act. It has never been invoked and it has been accepted policy both by the Labour Government and by successive Conservative Governments that the Industrial Injuries Scheme should be limited to the provision of cash benefits. I am sure that is right.
Let us consider for a moment the merits of the proposal. Of course, I can see the great attraction of providing four-seater motor cars for all National Health Service patients who are seriously disabled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two-seaters."] Two-seaters or four-seaters. With great respect to hon. Members, the Motion refers to vehicles supplied to disabled ex-Service men and these are four-seaters. If we were to supply cars to these other categories, they would be four-seater vehicles. As far as I know, there is not on the market a two-seater suitable for all disabled people. We are, therefore, talking about four-seater cars in this context.
The cost would be far more than most people perhaps realise. I will say more about that in a moment. But I must be quite frank and say that I really do


not see why those who have suffered a disability arising out of and in the course of their employment should be singled out for preference. Surely many other categories of persons are equally deserving. What of the paraplegics? If the paraplegia was not the result of an industrial accident, then, under the terms of the Motion, they would be excluded. Why should they be? Again, what of the man who was disabled as a result of an accident on the way to work?
Then, if one were to single out some National Health Service patients for the provision of a motor car, surely one would give some thought to those disabled men and women with families.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he will include—

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity I have some proposals to announce in a moment. They will take some little time.

Mr. Howell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting me, though not, of course, deliberately. My reason for putting the proposal in this way is that there is money available under the Industrial Injuries Act—about £128 million—which could be used. If he wants to do better than that, then I would be most grateful.

Mr. Barber: It was open to the hon. Gentleman to put down a Motion asking us to supply motor cars for all those entitled to invalid tricycles. He did not do so, but limited it to this category. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is very important. If his suggestions were accepted the single man injured at work would be entitled to a motor car, but the family man who was disabled in any other way would still only qualify for a single-seater tricycle.

Mr. Finch: The Motion does not say this. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Barber: I shall come to the Amendment in a moment. I am dealing first with the Motion.
As I was pointing out, I cannot believe that a proposal which would have such

anomalies would be either right or would commend itself to the House. Consider, also, the case of those housewives who are at present supplied with tricycles and who have young children whom they cannot leave alone at home when they go shopping. Simply because they were not disabled as a result of an industrial accident, they would not qualify for a car under this proposal. I could think of many more such examples. I mention these few to convince the House that it would not be right to single out for special preference those injured in industry.
War pensioners have been mentioned. Quite rightly, I believe, our people and sucessive Governments have taken the view that some preference should be given to war pensioners who suffered their disablement while serving the country during war time. Neither the Motion nor the Amendment calls for the provision of motor cars for all seriously disabled National Health Service patients who qualify for personal transport.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that if I were prepared to do that he would go along with me; and I see his point of view. But if we were to provide for all National Health Service patients four-seater cars on the same basis as they are now provided for those disabled during the war, not only would we have to replace the majority of the 16,000 tricycles at present in use in Britain, but the total demand would probably increase by a further 30,000 drivers, because we would have to take account of those so seriously injured that they required a nominated driver, as is the case with the war disabled.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) asked about the cost of providing motor cars for all National Health Service patients. The Government obviously looked into this in our review and we found that, over the lifetime of the cars, the additional cost would probably be in excess of £37 million. Whatever may be our ultimate goal, I am quite sure that there are other claims on our finances and resources which, at this time, should have priority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well, I will mention some. There are not only the claims of people other than the disabled, but also the needs of those men and women who are seriously


disabled but who, at present, do not qualify for an invalid vehicle of any kind.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr, in his very agreeable speech, said that he could not understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst wished to extend the categories. He said that everybody is included somewhere. But this is not the case and never has been the case since the beginning of the National Health Service, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who spent more than five years as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health, is right in saying that we should now extend the categories of persons now entitled to invalid vehicles.
I have been in close touch throughout the review with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. We have reached the conclusion that the first priority is to extend the area of entitlement to an invalid vehicle. But, first of all, there are two small classes of disabled persons whose position commands special sympathy and for whom, because of their special position, I propose to make available motor cars instead of tricycles.
The first of these comprises those people outside the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence Service who were severely disabled in enemy air raids and were compensated under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. These men and women are regarded as war pensioners by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but have not been regarded as eligible for cars since 1950. They were eligible before 1950. Those who are eligible for an invalid tricycle under our present rules will in future be provided with a car if they prefer one. There are 100 of them.
Secondly, there are the difficulties of those married couples who are both dependent upon tricycles. This matter has been brought to my notice by a number of hon. Members on both sides and I have decided that, in future, these couples will be given the option of surrendering their tricycles and being provided with a car. There are about 80 such couples. It will normally apply where both husband and wife are eligible for personal transport, but I would not exclude from consideration

any cases where two members of one family—for instance, parent and son or daughter—living in the same house are both eligible for tricycles.
In all cases we shall have to satisfy ourselves that the provision of one vehicle instead of two would be to the benefit of both patients, because, of course, two tricycles provide more independent mobility than one car. I shall also look sympathetically at any case where one partner in a marriage is eligible for a tricycle and the other, although not so eligible, is blind.
I have already said that in my view additional resources might be better used to extend benefits to a greater number of the disabled rather than to provide a better vehicle for those who already have tricycles. I have in mind particularly those men and women who are not disabled in the ordinary sense of having some disablement directly affecting the legs, but who are virtually unable to walk because of a disability having an indirect effect on their legs. Many people who suffer from a disease of the heart or of the lungs are affected in this way and hitherto they have not been regarded as eligible for a vehicle, save in exceptional circumstances. I have decided to extend the present arrangements for the supply of tricycles, or cars in the case of war pensioners, to those patients whose very limited walking ability is attributable to what are called non-locomotor disabilities and who need a machine to get to and from their full-time employment.
I estimate than an additional 1,000 disabled persons, including about 100 war pensioners, will benefit from this concession. I hope that it will be possible in the future to make similar provision, by stages, to some patients in this category who are not in whole-time employment.
There are certain further classes of persons whom I want to help. I have always felt a special sympathy for those whose legs are not sufficiently affected by disability to bring them within one of our categories of eligibility, but who suffer the additional handicap of having lost both their arms, or having an equally grave disability of this kind. These persons will in future be considered for a vehicle.
I also intend to relax some of the rules we have observed about the sort of employment regarded as entitling a disabled person to vehicles and those about the availability of public transport facilities. Many hon. Members will know what sort of cases I have in mind. These concessions will benefit a considerable number of people—probably an additional 3,000—but I must emphasise that some of them will inevitably have to wait a little time for a machine because, for obvious reasons, we cannot do all this at once.
Those who use the vehicles which are provided are, by the nature of things, very badly disabled, and it is right that we should do whatever we can to give them any extra comfort that is possible. From the end of this month I shall provide heaters in all new motor cars and arrangements will be made as soon as possible to fit heaters in cars already in use. We shall be getting in touch directly with the war pensioners about this.
I intend, also, to provide heaters in motor tricycles, but I cannot give a definite date for this until certain technical problems have been overcome. A heater has been developed which promises to be suitable for these vehicles and it is now being tested. As soon as I am satisfied that it is both efficient and safe—and I hope that this will be within a few months—I shall arrange for it to be fitted to both new vehicles and those already in use.

Mr. Cole: Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to what I said about making tricycles a little wider and the opportunity of being able to carry a passenger? I do not want him to answer now, but will he give the matter consideration?

Mr. Barber: I have looked into this and find that it would be very difficult to convert existing machines so that they would take a passenger.
I have one final measure to announce and this affects the most seriously disabled of all—those patients who are not only unable to walk because of a disability affecting their legs, but who, because of weakness in their arms or hands, are also unable to propel themselves in a wheelchair. I am making

arrangements for electrically-propelled indoor chairs to be provided for such of these unfortunate people who can be helped by this means to achieve some measure of independence—perhaps 2,000 people.
The additional cost of all these proposals is estimated, in the first year of operation, to be about £1¼ million. There are at present about 20,000 invalid vehicles. These new proposals will add probably another 6,000. The House will, I am sure, welcome these additional benefits for disabled persons. Arrangements are being made to deal with the applications which will be coming in and preliminary supply arrangements are already in hand. Those who consider that they will be entitled to benefit should, if they are war pensioners, get in touch with their artificial limb and appliance centre and, if they are National Health Service patients, they should arrange through their own doctor for an appointment with a hospital consultant.
There are in Great Britain at present about 4,000 cars and 16,000 tricycles on issue, and of the tricycles 2,500 are electrically-propelled machines. One hon. Member thought that these latter machines were supplied merely because patients preferred them, but in fact they are supplied to those patients who are so severely disabled that they are unable to control the ordinary motor tricycle.
So far as I know, no country in the world has an equivalent service for providing transport for the disabled. Such schemes as I know of—and during the course of this review we have, naturally, made inquiries about the type of provision made abroad—are confined to particular classes, generally the war disabled. In the United States eligibility is wider, but grants for the purchase of vehicles are restricted to war veterans and are given once only, with no provision for maintenance or replacement and barely covering the cost of the cheapest available car.
I am sure that the House will agree that while all of us would like to go further, these proposals represent an important step forward. I do not doubt that every hon. Member will instinctively feel, as I do, that it would be good if we could go further, but what I propose to


do represents the most important extension of the categories of the disabled eligible for vehicles which has been made since the National Health Service came into being. Indeed, the categories of eligibility have remained virtually unchanged since the inception of the scheme.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Member for Perry Barr will not press his Motion. For the reasons I have given, to do as he proposes would be neither fair nor would it provide help where it is most needed. The right approach is that adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, with all her experience in the Ministry of Health.

My advice to the House, including the Opposition, is, therefore, to reject the Motion and to accept the Amendment and, in so doing, to welcome the proposals which I have announced on behalf of the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 230.

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Eric
McCann, J.


Ainsley, William
Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mclnnes, James


Alldritt, W. H.
Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mahon, Simon


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ginsburg, David
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie


Bellenger, Ht. Hon. F. J.
Grey, Charles
Mayhew, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce


Benson, Sir George
Gunter, Ray
Milne, Edward


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Monslow, Walter


Boardman, H.
Harper, Joseph
Moody, A. S.


Bottomley. Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moyle, Arthur


Bowden, lit. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, Frederick


Bowles, Frank
Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boyden, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oliver G. H.


Bradley, Tom
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
O'Malley, B. K.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holman, Percy
Owen, Will


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hooson, H. E.
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hoy, James H.
Parker, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, Frederick


Collick, Percy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Probert, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Randall, Harry


Darling, George
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reid, William


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Deer, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, H.


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Diamond, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Doig, Peter
King, Dr. Horace
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Short, Edward


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Finch, Harold
McBride, N.
Small, William




Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Taverne, D.
Wilkins, W. A.


Snow, Julian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spriggs, Leslie
Thornton, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Steele, Thomas
Wade, Donald
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stonehouse, John
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stones, William
Warbey, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David



Swingler, Stephen
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, J. B.
Whitlock, William
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Mason.




NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Maginnis, John E.


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maitland, Sir John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhart, Philip
Marlowe, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Gower, Raymond
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Barlow, Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)


Barter, John
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, William.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Box, Donald
Hendry, Forbes
Neave, Airey


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hocking, Philip N.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Campbell, Gordon
Hollingworth, John
Pannen, Normall (Kirkdale)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hopkins, Alan
Partridge, E.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Peel, John


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peyton, John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cleaver, Leonard
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitman, Sir James


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jackson, John
Pounder, Rafton


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otto


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crawley, Aidan
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Edward
Leavey, J. A.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Errington, Sir Eric
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, 8.)


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, R t. R n. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fisher, Nigel
Longbotham, Charles
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Foster, Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss side)


Freeth, Denzll
McLaren, Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gardner, Edward
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)







Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wall, Patrick
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Worsley, Marcus


Turner, Colin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, 8.)



Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vickers, Miss Joan
Wise, A. R.
Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Walker, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Mr. Redmayne: Mr. Redmayne claimed, That the Question, That the proposed words be there added, be now put.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put accordingly and agreed to.

Mr. Redmayne: Mr. Redmayne claimed, That the main Question, as amended, be now put.

Main Question, as amended, put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to extend the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

7.9 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I hope that I may have the permission of the House to wind up this debate briefly later and reply to the points which have been raised in it, but it might be helpful to the course of the debate if I say a word or two at the outset about two important matters which received a good deal of attention when we last debated Northern Ireland affairs.
One was the proposal put forward by the Railways Board for the withdrawal of all passenger services between Dumfries and Stranraer and between Ayr and Stranraer. These proposals were of great importance to Northern Ireland because of the Larne-Stranraer link between Northern Ireland and Britain. The proposals have since been considered by the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee, as required by the Transport Act, 1962—and I should mention that there is a Member for Northern Ireland on that Committee. The Committee reported to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to the effect that the proposal

to close the Dumfries line would cause extreme hardship to a number of users, particularly to long-distance travellers using the Stranraer-Larne service.
The Committee also found that the closure of the Ayr line would cause hardship to a variety of users, particularly, again, to those using the Stranraer-Larne crossing. In the light of the Committee's report, the Railways Board informed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that if he felt unable to agree to closing the through services to Stranraer it would be possible to introduce a scheme under which the Ayr-Stranraer line would remain open, the Dumfries-Stranraer passenger services would stop, but through traffic at present using the Dumfries-Stranraer line would be routed along a loop line via Mauchline to link up with the line between Ayr and Stranraer. The direct services between Stranraer and London would be preserved, the journey time remaining approximately as at present. The services for the considerable traffic between Glasgow and Stranraer would also be preserved.
My right hon. Friend, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government of Northern Ireland, has today announced that he proposes to withhold his consent from the proposal to close the Ayr-Stranraer line, except for the closure of certain small stations between Girvan and Stranraer, and to consent to the closure of the Dumfries-Stranraer line on the understanding that a satisfactory through overnight service with sleeper facilities will continue to be provided between London and Stranraer, using the Mauchline loop line.
These services will continue to connect with the steamer service to Larne. The Railways Board has informed my right hon. Friend that it will continue to carry parcels and perishable traffic on the Stranraer passenger service as at present.
The Mauchline solution will enable the Railways Board to achieve savings of £240,000 a year, as against a saving of


£330,000 a year if both lines were to be closed to passengers as originally proposed. I believe that the House and the public will welcome my right hon. Friend's solution, which will preserve the essential needs of most travellers, including all travellers to and from Northern Ireland, and will at the same time save the Railways Board considerable sums of money.
The second announcement that I should like the House to hear at the outset of this debate arises from our last debate on Northern Ireland, when I said that Her Majesty's Government were ready to see that financial assistance appropriate to a major Northern Ireland industrial development project would be made available for the provision of a dry dock at Belfast substantially larger than the existing Thompson Dock, and capable of enlargement in further years so as to take the largest ships. I also said that the probability of a dock of vast proportions being needed in Belfast in the next few years seemed too small to justify what was then thought to be the very heavy extra cost.
Following my statement, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Government, decided to obtain from a distinguished firm of engineering consultants a detailed survey and estimate for a dry dock of the type that the Government were prepared to support. The consultants' report was completed and made available to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners very recently—in fact, in the last week of June—and it has been considered with great urgency by the Harbour Commissioners, the Government of Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's Government.
The report shows that in view of geological and other considerations it should be possible to construct at Belfast within the level of available finance a dock of 150 ft. by 1,000 ft., which is an extremely large dock. It will be capable of taking vessels of approximately 150,000 deadweight tons. The report also shows that the difference in cost between a dock of this size and a smaller dock capable of being extended is much less than had been previously expected, and that the cost of future extension works to increase

the capacity of a smaller dock would outweigh the initial difference in capital costs.
In view of this report, Her Majesty's Government see no reason why the Belfast Harbour Commissioners should not be authorised to invite tenders for the construction of a dock of this very large size. The House will appreciate that the final decision to begin the construction of this dock cannot be taken until tenders are received, at which stage questions of size in relation to cost and other financial aspects will naturally need to be looked at afresh. But I have every hope that the way ahead will now be clear. The cost of the dock will fall partly on the Government of Northern Ireland, partly on the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and partly on Harland and Wolff, who will be the main users.
This seems to me to be a favourable development, and the prospects are now set fair for going ahead with this major contribution to Northern Ireland's industrial capacity.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: It is a great pleasure to hear things which the Northern Ireland Labour Party and ourselves have advocated for so long placed being before the House as something like a blinding flash of intuition from the Home Secretary.
It was as long ago as 1955 that the campaign by the Northern Ireland Labour Party to get a dry dock in Belfast began. For years it was sneered at. It was regarded as quite unnecessary, and as purely a stunt. We received no encouragement from Government spokesmen to think that anything like this would be contemplated. Perhaps it was even worth postponing the General Election to hear this kind of thing from the Home Secretary now. We welcome the belated acceptance of the proposals which the Northern Ireland Labour Party and ourselves have been making for so long.
We have also raised the question of the Stranraer-Larne crossing on many occasions for a long time. It is remarkable how things which are at first deemed to be impossible are found to be capable of a solution when further consideration has been given to them. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the two announcements that the right hon.


Gentleman has been able to make. But I submit that if only there had been a little more willingness earlier to listen to the voice of wisdom a great deal of the hardship and real suffering which many thousands of people in Northern Ireland have endured over the years might have been minimised.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the beginning of this great venture in building a dry dock may have consequences for Harland & Wolff which, at this point, we cannot estimate. In contracting for new work there is a requirement for maintenance to be accepted for a period of years. When the dry dock is available I hope that Harland & Wolff will be more successful, because of its maintenance policy, in obtaining contracts which otherwise it would not have been able to obtain.
Turning to the general state of the economy in Northern Ireland, we find that there is still a very high percentage of unemployment. The figure still runs at about 6½ per cent., which is equal to about 34,000 people being unemployed. I would remind the House that this is still the position in the middle of a pre-election boom. Already, we find that the economic pundits are discussing in the Press whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take measures to check the economy before the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman will try his utmost to get the election over first in the hope of a success—such as it may be—after which we may expect that the pre-election boom will, as usual, disappear and we can look forward to the lean years again.
Despite the fact that this boom is now causing trouble for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we see little response to this condition in Northern Ireland. This presupposes that as yet there are no grounds for hoping that fundamental changes have taken place in the economy of Northern Ireland. Indeed, this problem of depressed areas in many parts of the United Kingdom, in Northern England and in Scotland as well as in Northern Ireland, at a time when the rest of the area of the United Kingdom is experiencing boom conditions is one which of itself, indicates the complete failure of the Government to plan the economy of what is, after all, a comparatively small island

as represented by the United Kingdom as a whole.
The fact that we are still no nearer to solving the problems in the worst places, such as in Northern Ireland, does not speak very highly for the competence with which the Government, here or at Stormont, have tried to plan their way out of what is now a permanent depression.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the instruments which we have already at our disposal in Northern Ireland. What is now the kind of activities which we can expect from the Chandos Council? About nine years have passed since the Council was set up and it is ironical to recall that it was set up as an alternative to the proposals of the Labour Party for a development corporation for Northern Ireland. We have had nine years in which to judge the effectiveness of this kind of instrument and it seems to me that the time has come when we should agree that it has failed.
Now that we are getting so much of the Labour Party's policy accepted by the Government, it may well not be very long before we expect an announcement on the equally important proposals of the Labour Party for a development corporation or an economic council of some type in Northern Ireland. I was hoping that today the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to make an announcement on that point. If there is anything that he can say—we give him permission to speak again in the debate—about the stage which has been reached in the discussions on this matter, we shall be very glad to hear it.
I have commented on a number of occasions on the failure of the Northern Ireland Government to recognise the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This has proved to be a great stumbling block to the setting up of an economic council for Northern Ireland. I understand that there have been protracted negotiations between the Government in Northern Ireland and the trade unions and that there is some hope that agreement will be reached. I fervently hope that it works out that way. I have always believed that the failure to recognise the trade unions was a very benighted and backward sort of attitude for a Government to adopt.
In this instance it is the case that this has been a bar to the setting up of an economic council in an area of the United Kingdom where, in more than any other, such a council is needed. I should have thought that we could not afford to be without such a council. Yet we have had a negative and grudging attitude towards what I should have thought was a helpful and positive step to bring together those representatives of the employers, trade unionists and politicians who, if they work in harmony, could do so much to improve the economic problems of Northern Ireland.
The case need not be argued any further. The principles have been accepted. Indeed, after our last debate I think that even the Home Secretary, after he had told us that this kind of thing was Socialist planning and could not be accepted, suddenly discovered that the Northern Ireland Government were coming round to the idea so that the right hon. Gentleman, who had condemned it earlier, began to make the right kind of noises. As I say, I had hoped that today his conversion would have been completed. I hope that these negotiations will come to a speedy conclusion and that in the very near future we may be told that agreement has been reached and that a new and vital piece of planning machinery will have been set up in Northern Ireland.
I wish to refer to one or two of the industries in Northern Ireland which were not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been greatly concerned at the threat to the computer industry. I understand that there was a danger that two factories would have to close and that this danger has not yet passed. There has been a temporary agreement to continue. I should have thought that this kind of industry, which is the genesis of modernisation, is the kind of industry which it is so vital for us to have if we propose to attract new industry to Northern Ireland and to modernise the existing industries there. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate he will tell us about the computer industry and whether I.C.T. is now in a better position, and whether we may take it that the two factories which were jeopardised will now remain open permanently.
I could go further and say that what applies to Northern Ireland reflects the shocking situation of the computer industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. Twelve years ago we had great hopes of leading the world in this industry. We are now in the very gravest peril of a complete American monopoly in computers. This is largely because of the neglect by the Government. It will be a very sad day if such a monopoly becomes entrenched here. I understand that the Finance Department in Northern Ireland uses American computers and that they are also being used in its training schools. I am told that I.C.T. could have made these computers. We must be told why an industry which is based on Northern Ireland, which could produce these modern products of the scientific age, should be threatened with partial closure. This is a very serious charge and one to which I would like to know the answer.
Surely we have now reached the stage at which the failure of British manufacturing industry to adapt itself to modern techniques is something about which we should all be concerning ourselves. We cannot hope to improve our economic position, more especially where things are as delicately balanced as they are in Northern Ireland, unless we can get a more modern approach to industrial methods than the vast majority of our industrialists are showing.
When we see that much which could be such a vital element in industrial modernisation in Northern Ireland is now threatened with closure through the Government not using the products which could be made, nor, as far as I can see, attempting any educational work with the manufacturers themselves, then I believe that this is the very negation of planning in the sense that is now necessary if we are to make big inroads into the problem of unemployment and the closure of industries which we keep on seeing in Northern Ireland.
I cannot believe that this kind of neglect is caused by any lack of capital at the disposal of the Northern Ireland Government. I am told that they have at the very least well over £21 million in reserve funds. Surely this kind of capital would be far better used in the ways I am suggesting rather than merely stultifying,


while there is no improvement in the economic position of Northern Ireland.
Let us look at the problems of steel in Northern Ireland. I know that there was talk some time ago about whether a small steel industry could be provided there and that this fell through. I am now told that much of British steel is being sold to foreign countries at a lower price than Northern Ireland employers can buy it. It seems to be a strange anomaly that parts of the United Kingdom greatly in need of steel cannot obtain it from the British steel industry at prices which are as low as the prices of the steel which the same industry exports to foreign countries.
I would have thought that it would pay the Government of Northern Ireland even to subsidise British steel, if necessary, and to stock it in Northern Ireland so that the manufacturers there could have the opportunity to compete effectively with foreign competitors who, apparently, are able to get British steel at cheaper prices than they can make it themselves. This is a point on which we should welcome information from the Minister.
For years there has not been a debate on Northern Ireland without the aircraft industry being the most important issue to be raised from both sides of the House. The position at Shorts is causing the gravest apprehension. I know that the Minister of Aviation was over there a short time ago and spoke of £55 million of public money being invested in different projects with Shorts and gave the impression that this was something well above average for the whole of the British aircraft industry. As I understand it, £40 million of that £55 million were invested in the Belfast transport aircraft.
That transport seems to be pretty well doomed to be an uneconomic product when the total number of orders is 10. We now hear that there is a possibility that some of the VC 10 cancellations by B.O.A.C. may well be going to the R.A.F., so that will be the end of any hope in the numbers of Belfast transports that we can expect the R.A.F. to take. Perhaps even more serious is that any hope of the Belfast being converted into a jet for the future would be very seriously jeopardised.
As I say, I understand that £40 million of the Minister's £55 million have gone that way. Another £10 million were invested in the Seacat which, at one stage, the Government wanted to cancel. They are very consistent in the way in which they first of all invest and then cancel. This has been a very great export success and it accounts for a further £10 million of the £55 million. There is not, after that, a very great deal left from the Minister's "pantry" for Shorts. He was also arguing, as I understand, that Shorts could maintain labour forces much better than other sections of the aircraft industry. This is a very old trick. The fact is that when the Ministry argues that there will be 6,000 people in Shorts for years to come hon. Members forget the terrific rundown from 18,000 which Shorts once employed.
Although I am very apprehensive about other sections of the aircraft industry it is certainly the case that there has been no rundown comparable to that in other sections of the aircraft industry. I do not know whether the Minister of Aviation has discussed this matter with the Home Secretary. He committed himself quite categorically to a figure of about 6,000 in Shorts for years to come. I would put to him a straight question: what do the Government intend to do? So far as one can see from the programme that Shorts now has, there is not within that programme, and within a short time, scope for 6,000 people to be employed there. Already, the design team has been reduced almost to skeleton proportions.
It seems to me that the Government, having decided that Shorts would not go into the consortium and only the Government could decide, they penalised Shorts because it is outside. This seems to me both unfair and cruel. Therefore, I would not have thought that a debate of this sort would have been complete unless we could have more concrete suggestions for the future of Shorts than anything that we have had so far. Shorts were dealt a heavy blow by the decision to take the Bell helicopter as against the Hiller helicopter. We all know the rights that Shorts had in Europe for the Hiller helicopter, but that, also, was something which they were not able to get.
I believe that the time has come when we must look on the United Kingdom as a united kingdom. The idea that we can have a different standard for Northern


Ireland from that in other parts of the United Kingdom is wrong. The only way in which we can possibly ameliorate the problems of Northern Ireland is by far closer integration of the economy of the United Kingdom as such.
A Labour Government would set up a national industrial planning board, with boards in the various regions, and, of course, Northern Ireland would be one of those regions. It would take the same share of development and expansion as any other part of the United Kingdom. We believe that this is the way in which we could encourage capital development in the science-based industries which are the only real future for an island, or two islands in this sense, almost bereft of indigenous raw materials. In the creation of industries, in which we export brains to the maximum and raw materials to the minimum and exploit the highly scientific methods of development which are now at our disposal, the "know-how" is here.
We know that the "brain drain" is now becoming a serious menace to our hopes of modernisation. I see no signs that the Government either here or at Stormont are taking anything like the necessary methods to stop the "brain drain" and to give the apprentices a far higher standard of apprenticeship than they now get so that they can become the craftsmen and technologists of a few years' hence. It is a tragedy that at a time like this we should have to be discussing economic failures by Governments which result in heavy and sustained unemployment when, instead, we should be discussing ways in which we could modernise new industries to face competition from the world.
I do not say that there has not been a great deal of money spent in Northern Ireland. The problem is that so many of the industries which have been set up have failed afterwards. There is an over-reliance on firms on the mainland which open auxiliary establishments and small factories in Northern Ireland. Then they begin to look at the heavier transport costs and, as soon as there is a little tremor in the economy, it is the factory in Northern Ireland which has to close. The time has come when the Governments here and in Northern Ireland must accept responsibility in these matters. It

is not enough merely to say that we are trying to attract industry from Britain or anywhere else to Northern Ireland. If private enterprise does not do it, the onus of responsibility is on the Government to create new industries by new agencies.
Governments are elected to look after the people in their own areas. We need in Northern Ireland an economic council, using the best brains available from both sides of industry. We do not want to see the Government working on a rather stupid basis that if private enterprise fails there is nothing left to do. How is it that there can be Governments in this country and in Northern Ireland which will not accept responsibility? I hope to see the creation of such an economic council. I am sure that from one side or the other the demand will come that if private enterprise fails Government must step in and start new industries rather than depending on people going to Northern Ireland for a few months or a few years and then leaving again.
I have outlined what would be the policies of a Labour Government. We would look upon Northern Ireland as a region of the United Kingdom whose economy is vital and in need of modernisation just as that of any other region. It is our hope, indeed it is our belief, that the time is not distant when we shall have an opportunity to put these ideas into practice. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will come along with us instead of sending hon. Members to this Parliament who blindly follow a Tory Government no matter how they turn the knife in the wound. I hope that they will send here Members who will give some assistance to those on this side of the House.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I shall not follow the wonderful boost for Ulster given by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). He trotted out all the woes of Ulster. His speech was no different from that which he made in the last Ulster debate, except that this time he referred to the Larne-Stranraer railway link. Last time he tried to produce an incredible fishing boat service between Donahadee and Portpatrick. At least he is taking credit for Dr. Beeching—but there are much more important things to discuss.


The one most important duty I have is to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the announcement he made, which particularly affects my constituency. I thank him because he has been most assiduous in the last two years in pressing on his colleagues and British Railways the immense importance to the whole of Northern Ireland of the Stranraer railways. I thank him most sincerely. I also congratulate the Minister of Transport. He and British Railways have produced a most ingenious solution. It looks as if they are to replace two loss-making railways with one which should make a profit. He has earned the very best congratulations of the people of Northern Ireland for doing this, and I welcome the new scheme.
The one thing I am worried about is that the people of Galloway will suffer when their Dumfries railway is closed, people who with us in Northern Ireland throughout 18 months have campaigned to keep these railways open. I can assure them that anything we can do to help them to get a decent transport service we shall do.
There are two points on this question which I shall be obliged if my right hon. Friend will clear up. One of the most important aspects of the railway connections from Stranraer to Dumfries is that it allows tourists from the northeast of England to leave Newcastle at 8 o'clock in the morning and to arrive in their hotels in Northern Ireland at 8 o'clock at night, travelling throughout in daylight. Can we have an assurance that that will be possible when the new route is open? May we also have an assurance that while the railways will be saving £250,000 they will not put up the fares from Stranraer to London just because there is an extra 40 miles of railway?
I do not want to deal with the question of the dry dock. Other hon Members will no doubt catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and speak on that announcement which was extremely welcome. I move to the question which is always completely forgotten on the Labour benches in these debates. One never sees many Labour experts on agriculture present in an Ulster debate. I wish to talk about the small farmer who accounts for 99 per

cent. of Northern Ireland's agriculture. The problem we have is one of small farms and intensive livestock production. Up to the end of June we had little to complain about as the weather has been good. There are two things, however, which we see as a threat to the future of small farmers. One is the factory production which is taking over the intensive livestock operations which have been the sheet anchor of the small farmers. The best example of this is the case of a farmer with 500 or perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 laying birds who with these can make a living on 25 acres. If egg production passes to the factory using half a million or a million hens and the small farmer loses his income from eggs he will be badly hit.
The same can happen with barley, beef and pigs. I ask that the question of protecting the small producer of eggs with a flock of 500 or 1,000 birds should be gone into thoroughly. Can the small producer be helped to compete against the multi-million egg producer?
There is an allied question to this, the price of feedingstuffs. In Northern Ireland small farmers with intensive livestock producers cannot provide their own feeding-stuffs. At the moment we are producing only a third of our requirements and we must import.
The Minister of Agriculture introduced his scheme for standard quantities and the Ulster Farmers' Union accepted this on the condition that it did not prejudice the right of Northern Ireland to get its feedingstuffs at the cheapest possible price. I am not prepared to say that this has happened yet, but there are reasons to believe that the costs of our feedingstuffs is turning out to be £19 10s. ex-Liverpool, which means that we shall get them on the farm at about £22 a ton, which is £2 or £3 a ton more than the equivalent cost in England. That must reduce the profits of Northern Ireland farmers and may even halve their income. I should like an assurance that Northern Ireland will be able to continue buying cheap feedingstuffs for our cattle, pigs and poultry.
I wish to speak to the point and as briefly as possible, because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The problem of the small farmers cannot be solved simply by egg production and the provision of cheap feedingstuffs. This


is a problem with which we have to live, and as years pass it will become more and more difficult to bring the standard of living of the small farmer up to that of the industrial worker, who has nothing like the same stake invested and puts in nothing like the same number of hours. I believe that something in the form of a new small farmers scheme is essential.
We must tackle the problem of land tenure and the size of farms. It is dynamite to touch land tenure in any country, and particularly in Ireland, but a lead must be given, and I believe that the lead and the money must come from here. We must look at the land tenure problem, and the problem of amalgamation and of the con-acres, and see whether we cannot make certain that the average small farmer in Northern Ireland has 45 acres and not 30 acres. Larger farms are evolving at present but we need something to speed up the process. I should like a lead from this country. We are ready for it, and if the lead is given I am certain that it will be followed.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: One might get the impression from the sparse attendance today that hon. Members are not interested in Northern Ireland, but that impression would be false. Many more hon. Members would have been present for this debate had they thought that there was the slightest chance of anything new being said, but since they are all aware, as we are all aware, that nothing new will be said, they do not see why they should sit through a long debate and they find something else to occupy their minds.
Nothing new will be said by me. I have never said anything new on this problem for the last 20 years, and I have made quite a number of speeches about Northern Ireland over the years, many of them long and most of them argumentative and provocative, and in some quarters considered offensive. I am very sorry about that, but I have introduced the one subject which really matters in Northern Ireland—religion. No one else has introduced the subject of religion today. Apparently the feeling is that we should not introduce it.
I read an article in The Guardian some weeks ago in which a man who used to be chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party said that when the last census was taken in Northern Ireland no mention was made about how many lefthanders there were or how many right-handers but that it was known to the very last man and woman how many dug with the left foot, how many with the right foot and how many did not dig at all—and we all know what that means in Northern Ireland.
Tonight I do not wish to be argumentative or provocative, or to mention religion, except possibly once in passing. One reason for that is that one gets tired of saying the same thing over and over again, just as people get tired of listening to one saying the same thing over and over again. All the speeches which I have made about Northern Ireland have achieved precisely nothing, and I do not suppose that anything I say tonight will do anything useful either.
I remember that during the last debate the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) accused me of having old-fashioned ideas about Northern Ireland. I freely confess that that is so. My ideas about Northern Ireland are indeed old-fashioned—and so are his, and so are the ideas of everyone who talks about this subject, and so are the ideas of almost everyone who dwells in Northern Ireland.
The moment one arrives in that fascinating province one is conscious of having taken a step backwards into the past. In some ways this is very charming and mentally very relaxing, but in some respects, too, it is sad and it is dangerous. But everyone one meets—and this is the case on both sides, irrespective of religion and politics—has these old ideas. They are people to whom old memories are still vivid, people to whom old prejudices and old fears, which should have disappeared years ago, are still new and fresh.
This is the cause of a lot of trouble. In fact, the more one reflects the more one realises that these old prejudices and fears are the main cause of whatever hardship and injustice there is in Northern Ireland. Without being too provocative this evening, I must say that there is a certain amount of hardship and


injustice there. A deputation came here recently from the Nationalists. I cannot call them a Nationalist Party, because I do not think that there is a united party as such. There is a loose group of people who assemble and whose ideas are more or less shared by them all.
They come here to speak to hon. Members about what they alleged to be social injustices which are committed in Northern Ireland. They alleged, for example—and I must say that they produced a mass of rather convincing evidence—that even employment in Northern Ireland is governed by religious considerations. It is alleged that men are given jobs and families are allotted council houses by local authorities not according to need or to merit but according to religion. This happens nowhere else in the United Kingdom, and everybody must confess that it is a sad state of affairs.
I find it difficult to believe that this is done out of sheer malice, but I can understand that it could happen through old prejudices and these old fears which I believe to be thoroughly groundless. This fear, I might say almost phobia, spreads beyond the boundaries of Northern Ireland and over the whole country. This has been going on for a long time. I remember a rather light-hearted verse written in this connection by G. K. Chesterton 50 or 60 years ago:
The men who live in black Belfast,
Their heart is in their mouth,
They're always seeing murder,
In the meadows of the south.
They think a plough's a rack, they do,
And cattle-calls are creeds,
And they think we're burning witches,
When we're only burning weeds.
It is a pity that this mentality exists today. This is plain in the lack of contact, for example, between the two Governments. I am told that the Government of the Republic made an approach to the Northern Ireland Government to suggest some co-operation in tourism and met a blank refusal. I am told that that is so, although I cannot vouch for it. The tourist industry is important to Northern Ireland because we know that potentially Ireland, north and south, is a holiday maker's paradise. Surely this is an area in which there could be great co-operation between the two Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) mentioned the refusal to give recognition to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, although many workers in Northern Ireland belong to unions which are affiliated to the Congress. The only reason I have heard advanced is that the headquarters is in Dublin, which is a foreign capital. I cannot see much force in that argument. Surely they have relations with other organsations which have their headquarters in foreign capitals. Why should they refuse to recognise these unions which are affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?
I still maintain that all this is based—this is the sole theme of the speech I shall make tonight without arousing any emotions—on old prejudices and old fears. I do not know what can be done about it. As I said earlier, all the speeches I have made have accomplished nothing at all, save only to annoy people, which I do not wish to do tonight.
May I make a suggestion to Northern Ireland Members, most of whom I know? I cannot think of one of them who would willingly condone an injustice. I hope that they will not think that I am being pompous, offensive or patronising about this. That is the last thing I want to be. Like the rest of us in the House, Northern Ireland Members have responsibilities to their constituents, even to those who did not vote for them. Some of their constituents are not getting their fair share of things. Hon. Members should be distressed about them. I am sure that they are. I know what difficulties face them. I do not suggest for a moment that they should make public speeches about it. I know that could be difficult and might not even be helpful.
However, they could do something privately. They have friends in the Government. They have friends on the Government-appointed boards. Perhaps they could discuss, even privately, these matters with their influential friends. Possibly they have done so already. I hope they will continue to do so. If this tiny little point which I have made is taken up by even one hon. Member opposite, the little speech I have just made will have accomplished far more than all the long speeches I have made about Northern Ireland in the past.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: This is the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) speak, and I will certainly look up the poem of G. K. Chesterton which he quoted.
The news about the dry dock announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fills me as a Belfastman, and as a Belfast Member, with delight. I was not present when the last Ulster debate took place a year ago. I was not then a Member of the House. It was with tremendous interest that I read in the local Press at that time of the intention to construct a dry dock in Belfast. I do not pretend to be an authority on shipbuilding, nor, indeed, on dry docks. However, I have gone into the subject in considerable detail. I had the temerity, during the course of my by-election campaign last autumn, to suggest a dry dock of 150 ft. width.
Therefore, it is with tremendous delight that I learn that the speculative comment which I made a year ago is now to become a reality. With ships currently being built with a beam of 141 ft., which is the width of some of the recent Japanese tankers, it is very welcome news that the new dry dock will take account not only of the largest current ships being built, but also of ships which may be built during the next decade or two.
There was only one point made by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) with which I would agree. That was his expression of regret at the current high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I agree with him there. However, it must not be forgotten that this level is declining and for the last two months has declined considerably and impressively. It is very important indeed that these figures should not be seen as an indication of a distressed or depressed economy, but rather, which they are, as the price which one must temporarily pay when an economy is changing from being predominantly agricultural to being industrial. It is, in fact, the price to be paid when one seeks to adapt oneself to the changes and challenges of modern technology.
Anyone present in Northern Ireland yesterday, on the occasion of the annual 12th July demonstration, could not have failed to be impressed by the very considerable

sense of prosperity, contentment and general economic well-being which existed wherever one went. This is surely something which even the most casual bystander could not fail to have been impressed by. This is as good an indication of any of the current level of prosperity in Northern Ireland. It was, indeed, most heartwarming.
I agree that we cannot be satisfied with our present economic position until the unemployment figures have dropped very drastically. The way in which we can attract employment is by determination, not by crying wolf and bleating depression. There is nothing more demoralising or, indeed, infectious in the wrong sort of way, than an air of depression. Just as an atmosphere of confidence succeeds in breeding and expanding a sense of well-being, and of confidence, so an atmosphere of depression can beget a deep and distressing gloom. I must correct one thing said by the hon. Member for Newton. He gave the latest figure of unemployment as 34,000. It is, in fact, 32,000, but we shall not fall out over that.
Thirty thousand redundancies have been caused in the past few years in the major traditional industries of shipbuilding, linen and agriculture. It is significant that, if these redundancies had not taken place, and the wind of ill-fortune had not struck those three fundamental industries as it did, we should now be virtually an economy of full employment.
Another fact which must not be forgotten is that there are more people in employment today in Northern Ireland than at any time in our history. In fact, over the last 12 months these figures have increased by no less than 7,000, which is quite impressive in a province the size of Northern Ireland.
There are two acknowledged guides to national prosperity. One is the trend of population growth. The other is the trend of personal savings. These guides are widely accepted. To them I would add a third, namely, the trend in the number of Income Tax payers. The Ulster population is growing steadily, in sharp distinction, perhaps, to the other part of Ireland. Surely this is an indication of faith in our future prosperity.

Mr. Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman say that was an indication that China and India are the most prosperous countries in the world?

Mr. Pounder: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not a valid point. There is a difference between a population eruption and that which happens in a progressive Western economy.
As to the second guide, which is the trend of small savings, the total sum being saved and put into the National Savings movement in Northern Ireland is growing steadily month by month, and this trend has continued uninterrupted for at least the past two years. Savings last year up to the end of October showed an increase of no less than £5 million as compared with the period to the previous October. In Belfast alone, the first 10 months of 1963 showed an all-time record of personal savings in the National Savings movement of £13 million, an increase of over £3 million or one-third, on the first 10 months of 1962. Although thrift has been a characteristic quality of the Northern Ireland people, this is, nevertheless, a fair indication of the economic state of Ulster.
Although successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have reduced the level of taxation and have increased personal and ancillary tax allowances during the last few years, which has resulted in an ever-increasing number of wage and salary earners not paying Income Tax, in Northern Ireland the number of taxpayers has increased by over 20 per cent. over the last five fiscal years.
Whichever of the three yardsticks one uses for measuring prosperity, Ulster emerges satisfactorily. Of course, there is more that can and must be done in the way of creating employment opportunities. That we seek constantly to do, but one thing is absolutely certain. Those who seek to portray Northern Ireland as a depressed and dispirited area of the United Kingdom are not only guilty of inaccuracy; they are also doing a great disservice to the industrial development of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. Had the hon. Gentleman sat down or given way?

Mr. Pounder: I had completed my speech and had resumed my seat.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Bence.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: We have just listened to two extraordinary speeches from Ulster hon. Members opposite. First, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) began by praising his right hon. Friend for all the wonderful work he had done on behalf of Northern Ireland. There followed a great deal of criticism about the work that needed to be done for the small farmer, to improve the system of land tenure and to improve the activities of the Egg Marketing Board. He was also concerned about the provision of railway services between Newcastle and Belfast. The sum total of his speech was that the Minister had left more undone than he had done.

Mr. H. Clark: Are those problems unique to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member represents an Ulster constituency and he cannot deny that he began by praising his right hon. Friend and went on to criticise the poor conditions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clark: Nonsense.

Mr. Bence: I do not object to his criticising the present conditions in Northern Ireland. He is only one of many hon. Members, including several on the benches opposite, to complain about conditions there.
Then we had the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), full of eulogies for Northern Ireland. He told us how tremendously prosperous a place it had become because of increased savings. I am sure that the thousands of people out of work there will consider it extraordinary that Ulster should suddenly have become such a prosperous province, simply because the country's savings—not their savings, let it be remembered—have increased by £5 million. It is a shame that they have not been able to share in the increase. I trust that the hon. Member for Belfast, South is aware that although, according


to him, Northern Ireland is prospering, according to his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North the general level of incomes has been reduced. Not only have the small farmers been losing a great deal of their earnings but unemployment has not significantly been reduced.

Mr. Pounder: I quoted figures of savings, but I did not say that those who had subscribed to the savings movement were necessarily all tycoons.

Mr. Bence: I was not saying that they were tycoons, just that the 90 per cent. of small farmers whose incomes have been reduced, according to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and the thousands of people unemployed could not have contributed to the increased savings. The most amazing statement that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made was to the effect that unemployment in Northern Ireland was not a very large temporary price to pay for a change in the country's industrial development.

Mr. Pounder: I did not mean it that way.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member cannot deny that he said that Northern Ireland was paying a temporary price.

Mr. Pounder: I did use the word "temporary". I admit that.

Mr. Bence: From 1951 to 1964 is a rather long temporary period, is it not?

Mr. H. Clark: We had it before 1951.

Mr. Bence: At least for 13 years Northern Ireland, relative to the United Kingdom generally, has been the weakest place from the economic and other points of view. I am merely saying that 13 years is a long temporary period for such a temporary price to be paid. We achieved a great deal when in office, but as soon as the party opposite took over the situation became gradually worse.

Mr. Clark: It did not.

Mr. Bence: It did, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. Unemployment has been 22 per cent. in some parts.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the population increase in Northern Ireland compared with the rest

of the United Kingdom, remembering that we must cater for a great many more school-leavers compared with the rest of the country.

Mr. Bence: That may be so, but it is no reason why the general economic situation in Ulster should have been running at a lower level of activity than the rest of the United Kingdom. That there are more school-leavers is not, in itself, a good enough reason for this lowered economic activity.
How can this trend be reversed if the Government in Westminster do little to help the efforts of Northern Ireland? For the last few years one noteworthy point of general agreement has been evident in the House; the fact that hon. Members on both sides, including those who represent Northern Ireland, have been unanimous in complaining at the way in which the Government have treated Short Bros. & Harland. There is general agreement that the Government's attitude towards this firm has been disgraceful.

Mr. H. Clark: Why?

Mr. Bence: Because they have failed to give Shorts essential continuity of work and adequate contracts and, when decent contracts have been awarded, the work has been withdrawn. I am not saying that this has not happened in other sections of the aircraft industry; just that to a place like Northern Ireland it has been particularly harmful. Who knows what part Shorts and the aircraft industry of Ulster will have to play in the next 20 years? Who knows the way in which the aircraft industry of the world will change in the coming years? Who knows what will happen after the elections in America? Shorts can play a great part in Britain's aircraft industry if it is treated properly. I understand that Her Majesty's Government hold about a 70 per cent. share in the firm. Despite this, and despite the fact that Shorts has an excellent labour force available, although it has been reduced over the years, no one in the industry in Northern Ireland is certain what will happen tomorrow, and the Government in Westminster must be held responsible for this.
I always take part in debates on Northern Ireland, and over the years I


have heard hon. Members opposite complain about the situation there and the attitude of the Government. I believe that Northern Ireland should be treated like any other depressed area in the United Kingdom. We should think in terms of units, referring to Northern Ireland the way we refer to Scotland and other depressed areas. This should apply with special meaning to Ulster, and new industries should be established there. But, above all, we should ensure that for transport the cost per unit of production is relatively small.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), I have listened to the same sort of speeches time and again, and my experience of British Governments is that they have to be told time and time again. It takes about 30 years for anything to sink into their heads. Historians have written that in the British parliamentary democracy it takes about 35 years for an idea to get from the back benches to the Departments. It will therefore take a long time for us to drive home this idea of pushing to the perimeter of the United Kingdom, not the basic industries, or what I would call the low-convertibility industries, but industries of which the computer industry is a notable example.
In that industry there are great skills and high techniques by which the raw material is converted from a very low value to a very high value, with the result that the transport cost per unit is not so heavy as it is in, say, the heavy engineering industry. This is very important. We have a plan for south-east England which will provide for further movement of population, but the population that moves out of Ulster—and out of Scotland—very often consists of the technicians, the draughtsmen, the industrial designers the experts, the highest craftsmen, and the situation can soon be reached, as is now happening on the perimeter of our economy, where desirable things cannot be done because the skilled men are no longer there.
One may well find a position arising in Ulster in which the very environment in which men can be trained has contracted, or has been destroyed—

Mr. Lee: Would my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of the training and skill that has come about there has been the

result of what was done at Short Bros, and Harland?

Mr. Bence: I have no doubt that Short Bros, and Harland, with its industrial and technical base, is capable of tremendous versatility in its products.
Hundreds of the new products developed in the last few years by the National Research and Development Corporation, have been sold to the United States, but which could have been taken up by manufacturing units in Northern Ireland working as subsidiaries of the Corporation. Why has that not been done? Many of those products produced by N.R.D.C. have a very high convertibility from raw material to finished product, and I am sure that much of this could have been done in Northern Ireland—as it could have been done in Scotland.
In many respects there is a great affinity between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We in Scotland feel that the problems of the people of Northern Ireland are very similar because, like us, they are on the perimeter of the economy. Very little is being done to move into this important area these technical industries that demand high qualities of skill and have that very high conversion value that makes transport costs less significant.
The Home Secretary has listened to five years of pleading from some hon. Members opposite and from all those on this side who are interested in Northern Ireland. There is little time before the General Election for him to do much more than make the same sort of promises as were made before the last election, but I can assure hon. Members opposite that after October the ideas which we have expounded for the last 13 years will be applied to Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that in three or four years' time the Northern Ireland people will realise the great difference between the one Administration and the other.

8.25 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I join in welcoming the announcement that the rail connection from London and the South and Glasgow and the North will remain open for the Lame-Stranraer route. This will give great satisfaction to the people of


Ulster, as it is one of its gateways from Great Britain. I should also like to say how much I welcome the announcement of the building of a really big dry dock which will take ships of 1,000 ft. by 150 ft. beam. One is delighted to hear that announcement.
I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I think that he does, as he said, rather live in the past, because I can assure him that in dealing with my constituents I do so regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House do the same.
Very considerable changes have been taking place in Ulster, and I should like to deal with the position in South Antrim which, incidentally, with an electorate of over 105,000 is the largest constituency in the whole of the United Kingdom. We are fortunate in Antrim in having an unemployment rate of only about 3½ per cent. Since 1959, some 17 new firms have commenced production there, and a further six firms have expanded with the assistance of the Government of Northern Ireland. Employment in these projects is about 6,000 and the figure is expected to rise to about 11,000. Twelve of the new firms and five of the firms that have expanded are in Government-built premises.
Those figures and facts are bare bones but, to speak from personal experience, I refer to the change that has taken place over all the area. I think, in particular, of a firm that has come from Europe-British Enkalon, which has started a factory in Antrim. The local authorities have assisted with housing and the firm is now established and giving good employment, and gradually an increased population will build up in the area. I think also of another European firm, Michelin, at Hyde Park. This firm has not yet started production—the buildings are just going up. I would not like the House to think that only firms from Europe are coming to Antrim. We have firms from Great Britain, such as the great firm of Courtaulds, whose factory has been in production for some years at Carrickfergus. It runs on three shifts, 24 hours a day, all the year round, and it has never stopped running since it

started. It gives considerable employment in this area.
There is the I.C.I. factory at Kilroot and the new Carreras factory which is starting at Trooperslane, Carrickfergus. I understand that this is expected to give 2,000 jobs when in full production.
I should not like the House to think, after my referring to factories and firms which have come to Northern Ireland from Great Britain and Europe, that the indigenous firms have been outdistanced. They have not. Over the years they have been providing employment and many have been developing rapidly. I can think, for example, of the Everton Sheet Metal Works at Newtownabbey, a go-ahead firm built by Ulster men. It has its own private aeroplane for its sales staff in Britain, Europe and elsewhere abroad. These are a few examples of the rising prosperity for which one must pay tribute to the work of the Government of Northern Ireland, assisted by the Conservative and Unionist Government here and by the Northern Ireland Development Council, to which a somewhat slighting reference was made earlier in the debate. It is, of course, the skill and hard work of Ulster people who work in the factories, in management and on the floor which makes for the success of this development. Let there be no mistake about it, we in South Antrim have a success story to tell.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replies to the debate he will be able to say something about the development of the new civil airport at Aldergrove. The old airport at Nutts Corner had a one-storey building. When the new airport at Aldergrove was designed it was no doubt thought to be adequate, but owing to the greater increase in air traffic and in the number of people travelling it becomes congested, particularly at the weekends if there are any delays in arrivals and departures and if, as often happens, there are a great number of visitors. It becomes physically difficult to move about. I hope that there will be some enlargement of the air terminal building.
As I have said, the building at Nutts Corner was on one floor but at Aldergrove arriving passengers have to travel


up three flights of stairs and then go down a ramp before they reach their aeroplanes. This is all right for most people, but for the elderly it is difficult and one hopes that some arrangement might be made for at least a one-way escalator. There is also need for car parking facilities for people who travel to the airport not only from Belfast but from all parts of Ulster. Better arrangements should be made and an easier method of entering and getting out of the car park should be provided.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something on these small but important points because we are anxious to see Aldergrove made into one of the best airports in the United Kingdom. In my constituency we are achieving success. The development is rapid and the people are enjoying a much higher standard of living than they had in the past. We shall go on doing our best to see that this improvement continues and increases rapidly in the future.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am sure that we are all delighted to hear of the large number of companies which have come into the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and of the prosperity which has resulted. The hon. Member told the House that the unemployment rate in his constituency had fallen to 3½ per cent. If his constituency is the largest in Northern Ireland and unemployment has fallen to that level, this obviously means that in the rest of the province the rate must be much higher than the 6½ per cent. quoted by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee).
The other thing that I would like to say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he and others on the other side of the House continue to paint such a rosy picture of the economy of Northern Ireland, as they sometimes tend to do, naturally when they come to ask for something the Government will feel that their claims have a fairly low priority. Certainly this has happened in the case of Short Bros, and Harland, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). The position of Short Bros, and Harland has been raised in the course of many years in this

House and the situation is no better now than it ever has been. In fact, I understand that some redundancies have already taken place in the drawing office there, and it will be very difficult to keep this company in being as a complete entity even if it should continue to carry on sub-contract work on behalf of other companies.
I am sure we would all agree—for this is not a political question—that it would be an absolute tragedy for the economy of the province if an industry of this kind, which is based on new technology and in giving young people in Northern Ireland a valuable training which they would not otherwise have, were to be lost to the province. I hope the Government are thinking of every possible means of maintaining an aircraft industry in Northern Ireland and, as far as they can do so, by means of their own orders, keeping the factory going until a new aircraft can be designed and brought into production there.
As I understand it, after the existing orders for the 10 Belfasts are completed the company will be entirely dependent on whatever it can sell from its new Skyvan production which it hopes to start soon. I am glad to know that great efforts are being made by the company to sell the Skyvan overseas because I think this is an aircraft with enormous potential in under-developed countries. Incidentally, I should like to say how pleased I am to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation in his place. I am sure we are grateful to him for coming to this debate, and I trust that he will do whatever he can to improve the position of Short Bros, and Harland.
The Skyvan, as I said, has great potential in under-developed areas. It can take off on very short strips. It does not need a very sophisticated airfield. It might be worth while for the Government to make an offer to some of the under-developed countries with whom we are in aid relations, to give them some of these aeroplanese so that they can try them out for themselves. I know that in general we favour untied aid, but this is a kind of tied aid which was considered last year for the shipyards of the North-East and I do not see any reason why the same principle should not apply to aircraft produced by this company.
I wish to refer to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I do not suppose anyone on the other side of the House will follow him in this subject, but I think it is rather important. Although hon. Members may believe that these old prejudices and fears to which he referred are groundless today, the visit of the Northern Ireland Nationalist Senators and Members of Parliament earlier this year gave to some of us evidence of practices which we found disturbing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) saw this deputation, and so did 1. I do not understand why the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition refused to see the deputation, for to meet these gentlemen was in no way an endorsement of their political philosophy. I do not even know in detail what their political philosophy is, except that I gather that it seems to imply doing away with the border between the Province and Eire. However, I felt that the evidence they produced gave a prima facie case of discrimination in employment and housing and of gerrymandering the electoral areas at local government level.
My right hon. Friend tried to check these allegations and spoke to some of the Northern Ireland people about them, but he was unable to elicit a detailed refutation or confirmation of the figures which the Nationalist Senators had given him. I shall not weary the House with a recital of all the facts which they gave, but one I found particularly striking concerned the City of Londonderry—or Derry as the Nationalists prefer to call it. At the 1961 census, the total population of that city was 53,744, divided as to 36,049 Catholics and 17,695 of other religions. Yet the electoral boundaries there are so drawn that representation on the corporation consists of eight catholics and 12 of other religions. There is something very peculiar in the fact that the number of Catholic citizens is over twice as great as the number of Protestants yet they have 50 per cent. fewer seats on the corporation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the boundaries of local government

constituencies in Londonderry are a matter for the Northern Ireland Government and nothing to do with the Government here. In that case it is out of order to raise that question. I do not think that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for drawing my attention to that, and I do not wish to dispute your Ruling in any way, but the United Kingdom Government have reserved powers under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to intervene in matters which are delegated to the Northern Ireland Government. Questions which I have put to the Home Secretary on this subject have been allowed on the Order Paper. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that my present remarks must equally be in order. However, if you wish me not to refer to these matters, I shall, of course, bow to your Ruling. I had not intended to go into them in great detail.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has asked Questions on the subject in the House, I certainly would not wish to rule him out of order.

Mr. Lubbock: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did not wish to do more than give just one or two examples, although I have a great many other facts and figures concerning local electoral areas which were brought to our attention by the delegation of Nationalist senators and Members of Parliament. As I have said, my right hon. Friend found it very difficult to obtain confirmation or denial of them.
I do not suggest that the facts and figures we were given are 100 per cent. accurate, but it is impossible for this detailed evidence not to lead to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of discrimination by gerrymandering. The same goes for employment. Hon. Members opposite would not condone discrimination in employment on grounds of religion, and they will all say that, in considering people for a post with a hospital management committee or with a local authority, for instance, an applicant's religion should be entirely irrelevant. But this is not what happens, as detailed figures show.
Picking at random from a leaflet which was left by the delegation, I take the example of Enniskillen, the principal town of County Fermanagh, where the Nationalists, or rather the Catholics—it is by no means certain that all Catholics vote Nationalist—make up 54 per cent. of the population. There are seven jobs in the town clerk's department, none of them held by Catholics. There are seven jobs in the borough surveyor's office, only one of which is held by a Catholic. There are 34 jobs in the Fermanagh education department and 28 jobs in the county surveyor's department, and there is only one Catholic in each department.
I am not suggesting that there should be a strict relationship in percentages of employment as between one religion and another throughout these different departments of the local authority. But it is quite impossible for such a distribution of jobs to arise completely from chance, and therefore I infer, if these figures are true, that there is discrimination on the part of the local authority in selecting applicants for jobs.
I am confirmed in that view by some public utterances by members of the Unionist Party. Senator J. Barnhill, quoted in the Belfast Telegraph on 9th January last, said:
Charity begins at home, and if we are going to employ people we should employ Unionists.
I am not saying that we should sack good Nationalist employees, but if we are going to employ new men they should be Unionists." 
That is a profoundly horrifying sentiment and one which hon. Members opposite, although they do not belong to the Catholic religion, would condemn as roundly as I do.
Even worse. When Miss Shelagh Murnaghan, M.P., introduced a Human Rights Bill in Stormont, no less a person than the Northern Ireland Attorney-General endorsed the principle of discrimination in employment. He drew the analogy that if a person who was an employer happened to be black and wanted to employ only coloured people he should be free to do so and, therefore, by implication, if a person happened to be of a particular religion, he should be allowed to employ only people of that religion. This is a point of view which could not possibly be

held by anyone in Britain, and it is time that it was eliminated in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the representations concerned discrimination in housing. I will not go through all the examples given to us but in the City of Derry houses are provided both by the corporation and by the housing trust. The Nationalists admit that the allocation of houses by the housing trust is done fairly and on the basis of need and that the applicants' religion has nothing to do with it. But they claim that religious apartheid operates for the houses provided by the corporation.
The Nationalists say that Nationalists in Derry are only housed in certain sections of the city—this being connected with the gerrymandering I have mentioned. They also claim that, although almost every Unionist who has sought a house has been provided for, a backlog of about 2,000 Catholic applicants have not received houses.
I wanted to have this opportunity to lay these facts before the House and to give hon. Members opposite an opportunity to deny them if they are untrue. I hope that if they are untrue I shall be corrected, but I have grave doubts as to whether people would come all the way from Northern Ireland to ventilate these grievances unless there were some sound basis for them. In view of our ultimate responsibility in this House for the conduct of affairs in the Province, it is our duty to take notice of these grave allegations.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Stanley McMaster: I should like, first, to say how very pleased I was to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the dry dock. The House may recall that at the end of the debate on Northern Ireland a year ago I asked my right hon. Friend whether he could say what would be the size of the dock which was announced during that debate and that I stressed that it should be large enough to take vessels of 150,000 tons which would be built in Belfast.
Although it has taken a long time to build this dock, as hon. Members opposite has said, Harland and Wolff will benefit from having a dock which


is the most modern and up-to-date in the world and a great deal larger than we had originally hoped when the announcement of a year ago was made.
There has been an extensive programme of modernisation in Harland & Wolff. It has new craneage and prefabrication sheds. I hope that this dock will be complete with craneage which will enable it to compete with any shipbuilding yard in the world and to meet the severe competition which our shipbuilding and ship companies are now facing.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Transport earlier this week of the new attitude, to be incorporated in the Government's Bill, towards unfair shipping practices, particularly as adopted by the United States of America. I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to the Minister of Transport the feeling among our shipbuilders that any attitude which enables shipbuilders and shipowners to meet unfair competition from abroad, whether in the form of flags of reservation, flags of convenience, or subsidies in shipbuilding, will be firmly supported so that our shipyards and shipowners can continue to flourish and so that this maritime nation will benefit.
The decision to build the dry dock will enable Harland & Wolff to maintain its present position as the largest shipbuilding yard in the United Kingdom and perhaps in Europe. It will enable it to meet the foreign competition which it is now facing, particularly from the Japanese.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred to Short Bros. & Harland. I welcome the visit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to Short Bros, a week ago, and I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary attending the debate today. We were reassured by the Minister's visit and by his statement about the trend of employment in the future. Although if one picks one's dates, as the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) did, one can arrive at any conclusion about employment, the Government have given great assistance by spending £55 million on Short Bros. & Harland.
That is a very large sum of money. It has been spent on developing the Belfast,

the large freighter aircraft in which I was privileged to return to London with the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary. It impressed us, and I am convinced that it will impress everyone in the Armed Forces when it comes into service in a year's time. We shall be glad to see this large transport aircraft, with a hold more than 12 ft. square and capable of taking heavy equipment and tanks.
We would like now to see a jet version developed. I ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to this request, and to see whether it is possible to undertake at least a feasibility study on the development of a jet freighter transport, because, as far as one can see, the transport needs of this country and of our Armed Forces will increase in the future so that we can protect our wide interests all over the world.
The 10 Belfasts at present on order will meet our needs for the next, five, six, seven, or perhaps eight, years, but after that there will be a need for another faster, more powerful and larger transport aircraft with greater capacity and greater range. The obvious solution to the demand for such a strategic as opposed to tactical transport is perhaps an aircraft based on the Belfast but powered by jet engines. As it takes many years—up to about 10—from the initial planning and feasibility study to the coming into service of such an aircraft, I suggest that the time is ripe to carry out such a survey.
In the meantime, we welcome the announcement by the Minister of Aviation, reaffirmed last week by a statement in answer to a Question in the House, that a substantial part of the work on the HS681, the small tactical transport being developed by Hawker Siddeley, will be carried out in Belfast, just as present work is being carried on there on the VC 10. We also welcome the announcement by the Minister in Belfast last week that more Canberra repairs are to be carried there.
I was shocked by the statement by the Leader of the Opposition on Seacat, which has lost us valuable exports from Northern Ireland. I shudder to think of what would happen to Harland and Wolff and to Short Bros., who contribute so much to our defence requirements, if the Opposition happened to win the next


election. The loss of potential orders for Seacats for Spain represents a severe loss to the workers in my constituency.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look again at the problem of maintaining a balanced unit at Short Bros., because unless we have design work such as I suggested for the jet Belfast and the HS681 in Northern Ireland, we cannot maintain the type of balanced unit which is so essential to our economy. This is an essential industry with a high manpower content. The raw material requirement is minimal, and the transport cost of expanding our industry represents a very small element of the cost of the final aircraft, but the contribution to technical education and advanced electronics which a firm like Short Bros, makes is most important to industry and industrial development in Northern Ireland.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to use his best endeavours, as he has done in the past, to see that we have this balanced unit in Northern Ireland, supporting as it does its managerial staff, essential office staff, as well as the men on the factory floor who are engaged in production, repair, and other work.
I do not want to speak for more than a few minutes, as I know that several of my colleagues wish to take part in the debate. We all deplore the high unemployment figure of 6½ per cent. I think that the House agrees that this is far too high. The United Kingdom Government have taken steps, and I hope that they will continue their efforts, to share evenly the prosperity of the United Kingdom throughout the United Kingdom. I am assured that the increased estimate announced in Northern Ireland for expenditure on roads, on hospitals, and on schools, as well as by the announcement today about the dry dock—which represents about 44 per cent. of the gross national product at the moment—will be spread evenly, and will take account of the position in Northern Ireland just as it does of the position in Scotland and on the North-East Coast.
I also feel that existing Northern Ireland industries should be encouraged to develop and expand, and that the Government should exercise themselves, in consultation with the Government of

Northern Ireland, in introducing measures to enable existing industries to develop as well as to attract to Northern Ireland new industries such as those announced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham).
Much remains to be done. Hon. Members opposite have deplored the high unemployment figure, but the trend seems to be in the right direction—downwards. I ask the Government not to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, but to give that final shove to the wheel which will finally deal with unemployment in Northern Ireland.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: One enters Northern Ireland debates with less trepidation than one does in Scottish debates. I do not claim to know Northern Ireland very well, but I have visited it many times. I have never agreed with the division of Ireland. It is important that I should say that. I was not born in Ireland. I had the honour of serving this country, as did my father before me, in public life, in peace and war. In humorous vein, although my mother did not come from Ireland, I had four Irish grandparents.
I therefore have an interest in the whole of Ireland and not least Northern Ireland. I had no intention of entering this debate, but I heard two of my hon. Friends speaking about the importance of discrimination. I have no intention of following the arguments of my hon. Friends; they made the point very well. No hon. Member opposite—and I believe that at the moment they are nearly all Northern Ireland Members—has denied the allegations that have been made.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: If the hon. Member is patient he will get a reply.

Mr. Mahon: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member, with his great knowledge of Northern Ireland, will be only too delighted to tell us in detail what the position is in Dungannon, Derry or Portadown. I shall be delighted to listen to him.
I have not had the honour of meeting the Nationalists. I did not have the pleasure when they came over here. But I have written to them and have received


an ordinary reply. It deals with the campaign for social justice in Northern Ireland. No doubt every hon. Member has received a copy of their statement. It complains about gerrymandering—giving houses away for reasons which are not British reasons; not because a house is needed but because the person involved belongs to a certain class of people or to a certain religion. If one does get a house one is given it either in a Catholic or a non-Catholic section. Is this really going on in Great Britain today?
After two world wars—after we stood, Catholic, Irish, Buddhist, Mohammedan, Welsh, Scottish, any nationality and any religion—against Fascism and Nazism, are we to be told by responsible people, without any denial, that this is the position in the British Isles today? I hope that an hon. Member opposite or a spokesman for the Government will assure me—and I am a democrat—that it is impossible for this to happen in these islands.
Recently, I had the pleasure of buying a record of the speeches of someone for whom I have a tremendous admiration, the late President Kennedy. Like myself, he had a great deal in common with the Irish people. It is regrettable that he did not come to Northern Ireland when he paid his visit to the Republic of Ireland before his tragic death. When President Kennedy was making his election speeches the question arose about his religious opinions, and I believe that he said—I hope that I am not saying anything that this great man did not say—that anyone who voted for him or against him because of his religious affiliations was wasting his vote and losing his franchise.
President Kennedy said that it was not relevant, because any decision that he made, any public decision, would be that of an American, of a free man and of a democrat. Would not it be fine if an hon. Member opposite would stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that there is no discrimination in Northern Ireland either by the Catholics or the Orangemen?
I do not believe in discrimination, and I never have. We suffered from it once in Liverpool, but now it is as dead as the dodo. There is no Irish question in Liverpool

today. We live amicably together. Houses are distributed according to need and full employment, or near full employment is what matters. If the people of Northern Ireland want to get rid of any discrimination they should work for full employment, because people cannot discriminate so easily when labour is needed. But if there is discrimination, we ought to be told. The Catholics, or the Orangemen, or the people of the Church of Ireland, should be told by the Government spokesmen whether, after the mass of evidence which must come from Stormont, the Government believe that discrimination is going on.
I have made my point and I am being perfectly honest. I said that I did not agree with the division of Ireland. How could I? I was brought up listening to the speeches of Robert Emmett and other Irish patriots, and if hon. Members opposite would permit I could go through every word of Emmett's speeches, although I am sure that they know some of the speeches. I speak about Emmett and Michael Collins. Every Irish patriot did not come from the South of Ireland. Most were not Catholics. Tone was not a Catholic. Emmett was not a Catholic. The first President was not a Catholic, Dr. Hyde. They do not discriminate there. The family name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) figures in a great deal of patriotic history of Ireland going back to the United Irishmen.
I do not believe that there is any discrimination in Southern Ireland. I do not know about Northern Ireland. To be fair, when I ask this question I am told that the Northern Ireland Government are eminently fair about grants for education, for Catholic schools and church schools of all descriptions. If they are so eminently fair in that respect, they must be trying and they must be men of good will. Why are not these men of good will, in an important position, able to control these irresponsible people who are getting Northern Ireland a bad name in so many ways?
This gentleman, Senator Barnhill, said some outlandish things. I thought I was listening to Senator Goldwater, and I am perturbed about that gentleman, but between Boyne Water and Goldwater there does not seem to be


much difference when we think about this statement. Barnhill said in 1964:
If we are going to employ people we should give the preference to Unionists. I am not saying that we should sack Nationalist employees, but if we are going to employ new men we should give preference to Unionists.
I remember my father telling me how hurt he was when he was a boy 12 years of age, struggling for a living on the Liverpool dockside as a ship's scaler— and there was no more patriotic a public man in this country in local government than my father; five of his sons were serving this country and some of them died for this country—to see notices on the docks saying "No Irish need apply". There were no notices saying that Catholics or Protestants need not apply.
I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for being able to make a speech for these few minutes in this House, because on many occasions since I have not been too well hon. Members opposite, not least among them the Members for Northern Ireland, have wished me well on many occasions. But I make this plea: surely after two world wars, when we fought for the things that we value, for anyone in these islands to discriminate on religious grounds is un-British and completely foreign to everything that we have stood for and worked for over the last century.

9.14 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) complained that no one had made a reply to the allegations of discrimination which had been made and I hastened to assure him that I would. I had not otherwise intended to take part in this debate. It seems to me that we are in grave danger of getting away from the main point of the debate which is concerned with the twentieth century.
History was made in this 'debate. I do not know whether hon. Members noticed it, but today for the first time, I think, since the war, and certainly for the first time in the 14 years that I have been in the House of Commons, we have had an intervention in a Northern Ireland debate by a Liberal Member. This is something which ought to be recorded and noted. He did not stay very long and I am sorry that he is not

here because I intended to reply to some of the things that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said. I think that what has been said by him, by the hon. Member for Bootle and by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) should not go without an answer.
It was delightful to hear the hon. Member for Thurrock intervening in an Ulster debate. My mind went back 10 years or more when we listened to his fiery, vehement eloquence, and today he showed himself extraordinarily modest and restrained. We appreciate the terms in which he spoke. His nostalgia for his native land leads him back to old times and leads him to rake over the embers of old controversies again. They are not relevant, as I shall proceed to show, and I hope to satisfy the hon. Member for Bootle on the same score.
All of us, wherever we are, would deplore—and the hon. Member for Thurrock did us on this side of the House the honour of saying that we would deplore—any suggestion of discrimination against any man on the grounds of his religion, certainly by the State and in almost every case by private individuals. It is possible, however, to conceive of a situation where discrimination by a private individual might possibly be justified. It may be possible, for example, where someone who has small children might want someone of his or her faith to be responsible for the upbringing of those children. It might not, therefore, be an improper form of discrimination to say, "I shall only employ someone of my faith to look after these children." There is nothing wrong in that kind of discrimination. That discrimination of itself is not necessarily an evil.
What is an evil is if discrimination can be shown to be practised by the State. The hon. Member for Orpington, who now unhappily has left us, quoted from some document he had been given by the Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland. Like many others, the hon. Member had to rely on words such as "I am told", and "I hear". Many hon. Members have had to rely on the same phrases. The hon. Member for Orpington listened to these people without understanding what everyone in Ireland understands perfectly clearly, that this is an age-old gimmick, the absolute stock-in-trade of the Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland.


In this question of discrimination the Nationalist Party had got something with which to try to rouse or frighten its followers. The Nationalist Party is already disappearing. It has reached the stage of the dinosaur and will soon be at the stage of the diplodocus in the limbo of forgotten things. But the hon. Member, like so many Liberals, swallowed the lot hook, line and sinker.

Mr. Delargy: I do not know if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will be coming back to the Chamber, but not only the Nationalist Party but also the Belfast Telegraph, rather a Unionist organ, has more than once this year protested in editorials and leading articles against this discrimination. It does not take the trouble to prove it but takes it for granted and asks the Government to do something about it. Is that not true?

Captain Orr: I was talking about the hon. Member for Orpington and saying that this was a Nationalist gimmick.

Mr. Delargy: I am saying that the Belfast Telegraph said the same thing.

Captain Orr: That may be so. I said that the hon. Member for Orpington had swallowed hook, line and sinker what the Nationalist Party had said. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member has now come back. I had said that he made history today. I congratulated him on the fact that a Member of the Liberal Party, I think for the first time since the war, had intervened to help us on a debate on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lubbock: I have been here only since 1962.

Captain Orr: I appreciate that, and his sojourn in the House is very short, because I doubt whether we shall see him again after the election.

Mr. Lubbock: What basis does the hon. Member have for that belief? Has he ever been in Orpington?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. We are not debating Orpington. What we are concerned with, surely, is Northern Ireland and the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was about to suggest that we might return to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Lubbock: I did not leave it.

Captain Orr: The hon. Members for Orpington, Thurrock and Bootle suggested that the Government ought to take action on the question of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland and that they had some responsibility so to do. When your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, interrupted the hon. Member for Orpington and suggested that he should not be making that point, he ultimately accepted the hon. Member's argument that, in fact, he was in order. I therefore trust that I am in order if I reply to him, because it is important that he should be answered.

Mr. Delargy: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to do me an injustice. I said nothing to the Government. I know that that is a waste of time, to start with. I made my personal plea to the hon. Members who sit for seats in Northern Ireland and to no one else.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Member and I am trying to answer him. If I were allowed to get on with what I have to say, it might be more helpful.
The hon. Member for Orpington mentioned the only Liberal Member in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, Miss Shelagh Murnaghan. He mentioned the Civil Rights Bill. I do not think he followed what Miss Murnaghan did in a debate on this very subject, which took place at Stormont, the Northern Ireland Parliament, on 26th May. On that date the Nationalist Party, whose propaganda the hon. Member has swallowed hook, line and sinker, put down a Motion about discrimination. I must point out to the hon. Members for Bootle and Thurrock that the Labour Party put down an Amendment.

Mr. Mahon: Which Labour Party?

Captain Orr: The Northern Ireland Labour Party, which is affiliated to the hon. Member's party. It put down an Amendment—a very sensible Amendment, if I may say so. It read,
… welcomes the improvement in communal relationships in Northern Ireland,


congratulates all those who by positive action have contributed to this improvement …
The Unionist Members —

Mr. Delargy: Finish the Amendment. That was only the preamble.

Captain Orr: I have it here if I can find it, and if the hon. Member wants it all, he can have it. It continues,
… and is of the opinion that it is in the social and economic interests of all our people that this spirit of good will should continue to grow ".
That was the Amendment moved by the Labour Party and supported in the Division by the Ulster Government, by the Unionist Members and by Miss Shelagh Murnaghan of the Liberal Party. As always, the Liberal Party speaks with many voices.

Mr. Lubbock: I find nothing to quarrel with in the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member has read.

Captain Orr: Nor do I, but earlier in this debate the hon. Member was quoting almost approvingly everything that the Nationalist Members had told him, whereas this Amendment, against the Nationalist Motion, was supported by a member of his own party.

Mr. Lubbock: Surely one can welcome some improvements which have taken place without thinking that they have gone far enough?

Captain Orr: I suppose that we must pass that kind of sophistry.
I come to the allegations which have been made. The first is in regard to housing, local authority boundaries and questions of employment. It must be noted, first, that 35 per cent. of all houses built in Ulster are private building. Most of them are subsidised. This is since the war. The Government lay down standards, but these regulations as to standards do not normally affect the location. I am not sure whether it was the hon. Member for Bootle who suggested that perhaps houses were sited in one place rather than in another for some religious reason. That does not apply to this 35 per cent. of our housing.
Sixty-five per cent. of our housing is local authority housing. Here the local authorities have absolute authority. The Ministry very rarely interferes with where a local authority sites its houses.

Consequently, there is no reason to believe—the Ulster Government have no reason to believe, I have none, and none of my hon. Friends has any reason to believe—that anywhere local authorities have acted other than completely responsibly in the siting of houses.
I gather that some of the complaints are about the allocation of houses. One of the difficulties in Northern Ireland is that, although our housing programme is running now at a pretty favourable rate, we are considerably behind the rest of the United Kingdom in the number of houses that are available. Consequently, in the post-war period we have been gradually trying to catch up. We have had to make new arrangements with the Government here. We had authority to introduce in 1952 a new subsidy scheme to provide more houses. The pace of house building is going ahead.
Still there is overall a chronic shortage of housing. For example, only one house in five in Ulster is publicly owned. Consequently, if people are unable to get a house and if they happen to live in an area controlled by a Unionist authority, they naturally suspect discrimination against them. If they happen to be in an area dominated by a Nationalist party, they naturally suspect discrimination against them the other way.
The root cause of all the complaints about discrimination is the shortage of houses. We are doing our very best. The Ulster Government are doing their best. The new subsidy scheme, based not only on the cost of building but on the cost of the money itself, is having its effect. None the less, there is no doubt, as the Government genuinely believe and as we here genuinely believe, that this is the root cause of all the talk about discrimination in housing. Very few precise examples can be obtained.

Mr. Lubbock: Can I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman one precise example concerning Dungannon, where 194 houses have been built for normal letting by the council since the war? All those are said to have gone to Unionists and none to Catholics, while there have been as many as 300 Catholics on the waiting list. That is a precise example.


Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman care to answer it?

Captain Orr: I have not got the figures for Dungannon. I do not have the figures for every town in Ulster with me. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is discrimination on religious grounds in Dungannon, and he will let me have details, I will certainly see that the authorities look into it. Nobody wants to see discrimination on grounds of religion. I honestly do not believe that it exists and, as I said, I believe that it is a gimmick of the Nationalist Party.
The hon. Member for Orpington raised the question of local authority boundaries. The Chair allowed him to develop this point and I hope that I will be permitted a short reply. The local authority boundaries in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government, under the respective Act. They were set up in 1922 and have not been altered since. When proportional representation came in the Government of the day set up an inquiry which was presided over by a county court judge. He took a great deal of evidence, although the Nationalist Party of the day boycotted the inquiry and refused to give evidence; and the boundaries were then laid down.
The local authority boundaries are based not simply on population but on rateable value, like the local government franchise, although it is not a universal one. It is precisely the same as the local government franchise which used to be adopted here, in that it is based on the principle that one must be a ratepayer to vote. Consequently, when defining the local authority boundaries, account was taken not only of population but of rateable value.
The hon. Member for Orpington also mentioned Londonderry, about which I happen to have some figures. When the three wards were constituted for Londonderry County Borough in 1936 a high population in the Waterside Ward was offset by an even higher population in the North Ward. The figures were, for the North Ward, two aldermen and six councillors with 5,469 electors and a rateable value of £105,824. In the South Ward, with two aldermen and six councillors, and 7,844 electors, there is a rateable value of only £63,000. In the Waterside Ward, with one alderman and three councillors,

there is a rateable value of £35,079 with 3,632 electors.
Thus, according to the criterion of making ones boundaries in accordance not only with population but with rateable value, Londonderry is probably about right. There is no question here of discrimination on religious grounds. It is entirely a matter of a different basis for the calculation of dividing the boundaries of local government.
The hon. Member for Orpington also considered the question of local authority employment and made the case that the employment of persons was and could be decided on religious grounds. His comments deserve an answer and I can assure him that almost in all cases the appointment of officers is a matter for the local authority itself, but there are instances where the Ministry—I understand that this applies in a considerable number of cases—has laid down certain qualification regulations.
I have made inquiries on the other side, as I thought that this point might arise. The Northern Ireland Ministry, after the experience of quite a number of years, is perfectly satisfied that local authorities, by and large, have conscientiously tried to elect the most suitable candidates. Of course, if the choice is made by a Nationalist Council and a Nationalist candidate happens to be preferred, the defeated candidate and all his supporters are bound to say, "Religious discrimination"—and the same thing is bound to happen the other way round. I am perfectly certain that that is the case.
The only two cases I have ever heard cited date back to 1952. They are old cases, and they are usually cases where no appointment has been made since 1952. For example, I am surprised that the hon. Member did not ask about the Crown Solicitors, because this is one matter that his Nationalist friends put up from time to time. I am surprised that he did not ask about the medical officers of health—or would he like something said about them? Or about the police? Having heard so much of the old record, I am surprised that he did not produce the rest of it.
I hope that I have said enough at this stage, but if I have missed any particular


point or failed to deal with any individual example I am perfectly happy to see that investigations are made, and so are the Government of Northern Ireland. The point is that in Ulster today the religious discrimination that undoubtedly existed in the past—and it was based on interference by the churches in politics—and the old bitternesses are dying. It is appalling that in a debate like this, concerned with the twentieth century, concerned with problems of finding employment for our people, concerned with trying to lay good economic foundations, this ancient prejudice should be raked over again.
It really is a terrible disservice to our country, but it is characteristic, anyway, of the Liberal Party, which has nothing to live on but the past and can never look to the future. At the next General Election—

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbockrose—

Captain Orr: It is all right. I have a Liberal candidate against me at the next election and he will get the proper answer from the sensible people of Northern Ireland. And I will not give way—the hon. Member has made his speech. If he is will to dish it out he must also be ready to take it. I now hope that we can return to the main purpose of this debate, which is to try to provide employment and a reasonable standard of prosperity for our people.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: In the few minutes that are left to me, I should like to express my bitter disappointment that this debate, which started with such high promise, should have developed as it has done. I cannot blame the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) because he was careful to confine his observations to those having a bearing on the present industrial situation in Northern Ireland, and the lines that might be taken for the advancement of the Northern Ireland economy. He was good enough to say that both sides of the House virtually had a common interest in trying to do whatever was possible to develop that economy. The only bone of contention I would seek to pick with him is that, perhaps, he did not give sufficient reward by way of praise to the Government of Northern Ireland and

to the Government of the United Kingdom for what has been achieved.
This problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland is not a new one. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) was good enough to remind the House of some of the basic factors which affect our economy over there. There are the complete absence of raw materials and the freightage costs which are added to production costs, first for the importation of the raw materials so that they might be processed, and then for their re-exporting to the markets of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world once they have been manufactured.
These are the basic factors which apply to all manner of goods produced in Northern Ireland, with two exceptions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) referred. For the most part, the factories dealing with these exceptions lie in my hon. Friend's constituency. The exceptions are ships which can sail out once they are manufactured and aircraft which can fly out. These factors must be borne in mind when we consider the problems of Northern Ireland.
The achievements over the past two years have not been too bad, I agree that the present figure of unemployment, which shows some improvement, is still devastating. The latest figure for June, 1964, is 32,291, It has been referred to tonight as 6½ per cent. of the employable population. In March of this year the figure was 36,505 and in March, 1963, it was 45,184. There has been an impressive decrease in the number of unemployed. I hope that the decrease will continue.
Another figure which should be considered is the number of vacancies unfilled in industry. In March, 1963, that figure was 1,348. Today, the number is 1,420.

Mr. Archie Manuel: We always have the difficulty in the bad areas in Scotland that the unemployment figure does not reflect the true position because it does not include women who are not paying the full unemployment insurance contribution and are, therefore, not counted. I suggest to the hon. Member that likewise, in Northern Ireland, a fair proportion of unemployed women should be included.

Mr. Currie: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but owing to the lack of time 1 must try to condense what I have to say.
I am trying to point to the great need in Northern Ireland of technical training in industry and the creation of skill in those people who are unemployed so that they can be fitted into new jobs in new industry. In the United Kingdom industry is all the time becoming more and more complex. The skills which are now required are not possessed by the vast majority of our unemployed. It is clear that what is required is a widespread and costly training scheme so that our people can be fitted for new industry. I know of two industries which would have come to Northern Ireland from abroad had we been able to supply the necessary skilled operators for them.
In the limited time remaining I want to refer to the computer industry. This lies within my constituency and I must confess that I am worried about this industry. I make many visits to the factory. The trouble with the computer industry of the United Kingdom today, as I see it, is that we have had to modernise our equipment. We have had to convert from the valve to the transistor equipment, and we have not so far had the machines which are capable of doing this. Therefore, the basic units have been imported from the United States of America.
It would be wrong to stop this import because, after all, in Scotland there are factories engaged in the assembly of these units which are imported from the United States of America, so that the prohibition of the import is not the answer. What is required is technical education so that our operators can undertake the same job and, in fact, do a better job than our American competitors.
I apologise for dealing with these matters so abruptly.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to reply briefly to the points which have been raised, I should like to start by saying that the responsibilities of the Home Secretary towards Northern Ireland are some of the most interesting as well as the most important of his duties, and that it has been the greatest pleasure to me for two full

years to be the spokesman for Northern Ireland interests in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
I cannot help adding that I am glad that at the end of two years, in June, 1964, unemployment in Northern Ireland was lower than it has been in any June in the last 10 years, except 1956 and 1960, which, I would like the Opposition to note, were the years after, and not just before, a General Election.
The problem that we have had to face in Northern Ireland is broadly the very heavy fall in agricultural employment, which is not confined to Northern Ireland. It is intimately connected with the modernisation of agriculture. Perhaps 20,000 jobs have disappeared there. Shipbuilding has lost 10,000 jobs, which again, is in line with the decline in shipbuilding employment in many other countries, and there has been a fall in employment also in the textile industry. As against that, the number of actual jobs provided by firms which have been assisted by the Northern Ireland Government to establish themselves there or to expand, which was noted in the Hall Report as about 48,000 in December, 1961, was up to 55,800 in March, 1964, and the future total, including developments now in prospect, is 74,600.
It is significant that the general engineering industry in Northern Ireland has expanded in terms of manpower over the past few years at the remarkably high rate of 10 per cent. per annum. The estimated expenditure by the Northern Ireland Government in its industrial development programme last year, 1963–64, was £17¼ million. This year, 1964–65, it is estimated at nearly £21 million. This seems to cut across the Opposition's suggestion that there has been no governmental activity in helping the unemployment situation there. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) alleged that the United Kingdom Government gave very little help to Northern Ireland.
It is common knowledge that, although the United Kingdom Government cannot help directly towards the very substantial expenditure which Northern Ireland's industrial development programme involves, it is doubtful whether Northern Ireland could stand the strain of this if the United Kingdom Government did not support Northern


Ireland to the tune of about £50 million a year by paying the agricultural subsidies and by contributing to the cost of its social services.
At present, Harland and Wolff's order book includes 10 merchant ships of over 10,000 tons totalling over 310,000 tons. Those include orders for three ships totalling 94,000 tons which have been placed with Harland and Wolff as the result of the Minister of Transport's credit scheme. These facts should be known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) always, and rightly, draws the attention of the House to Short Brothers & Harland, in his constituency. In passing, I say how sorry we are that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) cannot be present at our debate, as she always is. We greatly hope she will be well enough to return to the House soon.
I paid a visit, by no means my first, to Short Brothers the other day, when I was invited to speak at the prize-giving of the company's apprentice training school. That school is one of the most impressive industrial developments in Northern Ireland.
Opposition spokesmen seem to forget the amount of assistance which the United Kingdom Government have given already. There is the £10 million advanced, with the help of the Northern Ireland Government for the Belfast and the Skyvan. There is the sub-contract work which is being done by Short's at Belfast at a cost estimated to be nearly £2¾ million more than if it had been done in Britain, as it could have been. All this is of direct assistance to Short Brothers & Harland.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, who himself was there just the other day, has no reason to waver from his hope that enough work will be available to Short Brothers to provide employment for a production labour force of close on 6,000 until the end of the present decade. As he has said, the difficult period is likely to be between the end of 1965, when the Belfast programme may be coming to an end, and the middle of 1967, when the HS 681 will be getting under way. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for

believing that this trough, so to call it, can be filled up. One programme which will help in this connection is the conversion work on Canberra aircraft which will provide employment for a good number of extra people during this period.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) intimated that the Labour Party could run British and Northern Ireland industries much better than the businessmen now in charge could do. I find that an improbable claim. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Party would have a plan, a plan to send industries compulsorily where they do not want to go and regardless of whether they could sell their products when they got there. That form of Government direction of industry is not a plan. It is an economic nonsense. The Northern Ireland Government are proceeding much more wisely by having set on foot the Wilson inquiry into the useful scope of economic planning and co-ordination in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government hope that this work will be completed in the autumn. I hope that it will be of great value. I am sure that it is a wiser approach than that adumbrated by the Opposition.
I am grateful for the speeches that have been made by my hon. Friends and their references to the Stranraer line and to the new and very big dry dock. I am delighted about that development. These are the elements which will be important to the economic future of Northern Ireland, not vague talk about economic planning which has never worked in the past and certainly will not work in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) raised a number of farming points from his constituency, which he looks after so well. I will bring these to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and my other hon. Friends will accept that this year's Price Review was favourable to the Northern Ireland farmers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) spoke, among other things, of the situation at Aldergrove. Air traffic there has increased and is continuing to


increase faster than was predicted when the terminal building was planned and more passengers are passing through than was expected at this stage of development. That is a good rather than a bad thing for the future. But a scheme is now being drawn up to extend the terminal buildings and some of the facilities there.
I also have much sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend said about elderly or infirm people. I would like to assure him that all concerned with management at Aldergrove are very willing for passengers to pass to their aircraft wholly at ground level without going to the first storey when, because of age or disability, they would prefer not to go upstairs to the passenger concourse. Car parking arrangements are also being examined by an expert of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs and new parking plans will be prepared for the airport.
Much of the debate has been taken up, not very helpfully, by allegations of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Frankly, I think that there are more urgent matters to discuss than these allegations. It goes without saying that every hon. Member, of whatever party, deplores any discrimination of that kind. But the constitutional facts are that Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act provides that, in the exercise of its power to make laws, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not make a law of a discriminatory kind on account of religion and the executive power of the Northern Ireland Government is similarly limited under Section 8(6).
If, therefore, any Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament or any executive act of the Northern Ireland Government is made contrary to this statutory prohibition, its validity can be tested in the courts. But it has been held by successive Governments in the United Kingdom, regardless of party, that the reserve powers in the Government of Ireland Act do not enable the United Kingdom Government to intervene in matters which, under Section 4, are the sole responsibility of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government.
We all welcome to our debates on Northern Ireland my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).
He Spoke, rightly, of the sense of prosperity and general well-being in Northern Ireland. It is sad indeed that we still have 6½ per cent. unemployment there, but whenever I go to Northern Ireland I am conscious of the forward looking, hopeful attitude of everybody and I contrast it most vividly with what I can remember of Durham and South Wales in the days of depression.
The clouds of depression in Northern Ireland are being rolled away by the initiative of the people of Northern Ireland and their Government and with the steady and vigorous help of the Government of the United Kingdom. The sun is out now in Northern Ireland. I remember that when I was Minister for Welsh Affairs I was once asked what happened at the end of the rainbow, and I said that it ended, like other rainbows, in a crock of gold. That came true for Wales and, provided that a Conservative and Unionist Government remain in power here, it will come true for Northern Ireland, also.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUMMER TIME

10.1 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 1st July.
As the Order this year introduces an innovation, it may be right for me to give a short explanation of its background. The Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provide that Summer Time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October, save where Easter Day falls on that Sunday in April, in which case Summer Time starts a week earlier. In 1947, an Act was passed which provided for Summer Time to be varied in any year by Order in Council. It is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of that Act that the draft Order has been laid.
An inquiry conducted by the Government in 1959–60 showed that public


opinion appeared to favour prolongation of the normal statutory period of Summer Time as laid down in the Acts of 1922 and 1925. After a full debate in December, 1960, Parliament approved the Government's proposal experimentally to extend the period for three weeks in both spring and autumn. This experimental arrangement, which was effected by the Summer Time Order, 1961, proved generally popular and subsequent Orders authorised its continuance during 1962 and 1963.
This year, to avoid Summer Time starting on Easter Day, an extension of seven weeks was authorised by the Summer Time (1964) Order, 1963. This earlier beginning of Summer Time appears to have been popular and we are, therefore, proposing that next year's extension should be of a similar duration.
It has been suggested that it would be more satisfactory to all concerned, and especially to those who compile diaries and timetables, if the periods of Summer Time were fixed for some years ahead, rather than annually as has been usual. My right hon. Friend thinks that there is substance in this proposal and he has, therefore, decided to include in the draft Order in Council provision for a seven weeks' extension of the normal statutory period in the three years 1965–67. The periods are from 21st March to 24th October in 1965, 20th March to 23rd October in 1966, and 19th March to 29th October in 1967.
Perhaps I should explain that if public opinion about Summer Time should alter between now and 1967, it would be practicable to modify this Order in Council at any time by means of a new Order in Council.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not think anyone would quarrel with this Order. As it is an innovation, the hon. Gentleman was right to explain why it takes a different form from previous Orders.
The House has always taken a great interest on when Summer Time should operate, and it is to be observed that hitherto Parliament has retained control over the times which are fixed each year. On the other hand, I think it is now generally recognised that it is to the

convenience of a great many people to know in advance, perhaps at least more than one year ahead, what the Summer Time dates are to be. I understand that this is of particular convenience not only to those who manufacture and make diaries, but also to those, which I suppose includes most of us, who use diaries, and therefore are able to know when Summer Time operates.
Summer Time has become so ingrained in our social system in this generation that some of us are inclined to overlook what immense benefits it has conferred on the community, not only in providing much greater opportunities for many people to enjoy extended hours of sunshine for many months of the year, but in providing economic and industrial benefits involving a great deal of saving in gas, electricity and power of various kinds.
One should, I think, note that there has been a tendency gradually to extend the length of Summer Time, and I think that the Minister is right in saying that that is generally in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the citizens, although there are still sections of the community to whom the prolongation of Summer Time to later in the year produces some hardship. But this is essentially a matter in which the House should have regard to the general interest.
One observes that we have now got to the stage at which Summer Time seems to be in operation not merely for the summer months but for the major part of the year. For example, in the dates proposed for 1967, it seems to be an extension not merely of seven weeks but of eight weeks. Summer time will operate from 19th March to 29th October, which according to my calculations is 7½ months. I would have thought that we had reached the extreme limit of the period for which Summer Time was desirable, and I hope that we shall not drift into a situation such as obtains in France and other continental countries where Summer Time is in operation throughout the year.
I cordially support the Order and hope that the House will approve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 1st July.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DELIVERY VANS (KEEPING OF RECORDS)

10.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Order 1964, dated 25th June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
This draft Order continues in force permanently the provision of Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. The history of the matter is that Section 21 of that Act removed from the users of certain small goods vehicles the obligation to keep records of drivers' hours and other related matters which otherwise would fall upon them under Section 186 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
The vehicles affected are C licence vehicles weighing no more than 16 cwt. unladen when on journeys within five miles of their base, that is to say, in general terms small vans on local delivery work. As the House will realise, the danger that drivers of small local delivery vans will exceed the limit is in practice very slight, so in the 1962 Act they were exempted from the general requirements that apply to other types of vehicles. However, as in the 1962 Act we were breaking new ground in this exemption and we could not be absolutely certain of what would happen, we decided in that legislation to limit the exemption to an experimental period of two years.
This period of two years lapses on 31st October, and so it is necessary to decide what to do next. We have taken some advice about this. We have asked the licensing authorities for carriers licences, whose staff enforced the hours rules, to let us have reports on the effects of the exemption. They have told us that there is no evidence of any abuse. The exemption has also clearly given a

useful though perhaps small relief from unnecessary paper work to local small van drivers.
Another interesting point is that both sides of the industry agree that the exemption should be continued. In view of the success of this exemption for small local vans and its general popularity, therefore, my right hon. Friend considered whether this exemption might be enlarged to cover other classes and longer distances. It was suggested to him by one of the bodies consulted before he drafted the Order that these limits should be raised to 1½ tons and 15 miles, respectively, and by another body that they should be raised to 3 tons and 25 miles. My right hon. Friend decided against any widening at this stage, for the following reasons.
In the first place, the reports from licensing authorities showed that the incidence of hours offences among vehicles just over the 16 cwt. line, although small, was not entirely negligible. Some hours offences have been found among drivers of even the smallest goods vehicles working beyond the five mile radius. Secondly, either of the extensions proposed would materially increase the number of the vehicles affected. Over half the goods vehicle fleet is under 1½ tons, and over two-thirds is under 3 tons.
An extension on this scale, therefore, would produce the risk that some of the exempted drivers would offend without any possibility of detection, because there would be so many more vehicles. There would also be an indirect risk to enforcement, because the task of distinguishing over such wide classes of vehicle between those operating inside and outside their permitted distances would add greatly to the task of the enforcement officers.
The third reason why my right hon. Friend felt that it would not be right to extend this provision is that he is concerned at the extent to which it has recently been reported that the hours rules are being broken by some drivers. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend's Department is studying ways of intensifying enforcement in this field. Therefore, he did not think that this would be the right moment to have any relaxation.
What it comes to is that although my right hon. Friend is willing to continue the existing exemption which has been shown to cause no danger, he does not think it right at the present time to take the risk of adding in any way to the difficulties of enforcement staff. All the evidence points to maintaining the status quo which has worked well for the last two years. I accordingly ask the House to approve the draft Order.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: When the 1962 Act was going through the House, and was upstairs in Committee—I was a member of that Committee—my hon. Friends and I readily agreed to help the Minister in one or two experiments that he was making. We were very co-operative in the matter of road safety, and we also decided that the matter with which the Order now deals was a worthwhile experiment. If the Minister takes the trouble to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings on that Measure he will find that we let the provision go through unopposed, with practically no debate.
But it so happens that this Order is introduced at a time when many of us have grievous doubts—and there are no party politics in this—about the abuses which are going on at the moment, especially about the keeping of records, not only by A and B licence holders, but, in many cases, by C licence holders. The Parliamentary Secretary has conceded that this was one reason why the Minister was loath to extend the permission over 16 cwt. He feared that abuse might follow.
If I understood him aright the Parliamentary Secretary said that this had been an experiment for two years and advice had been taken from licensing authorities which had no evidence that there had been any abuse. I do not see how those authorities could secure any evidence, because there are so few inspectors employed by the Ministry of Transport to check these vehicles. It is obvious that the situation has been hopeless for the last 18 months or two years and that there would not be sufficient evidence obtained to make a case.
What the hon. Gentleman is really saying is that there have been no prosecutions and that does not prove anything. It

does not follow that because there have been no prosecutions there have been no abuses. Recently, the Minister started a "purge" among the heavy vehicles and he has been startled by what he has found. Reports about the conditions of vehicles and the way in which records are kept reveal that there is a serious state of affairs; at least, that is our opinion.
We should like to know how many C licences have been issued during the last two years. Last week, the Minister gave a figure of about 650,000 C licence holders, well over half a million. I do not know how many of these relate to 16 cwt. vehicles. The Minister did give some indication but I do not understand what he meant. Is it one-third which are 16 cwt. vehicles? Can the Minister tell us what owners are to be exempt from keeping records? If my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) were present he would have been surprised that the Minister is not continuing this as an experiment.
I am raising this matter in no carping spirit. My only concern is with safety and that the necessary records should be kept. There are many genuine C licence holders who ought not to be bothered about keeping records. We have reached a stage when the whole of the licensing system may well have to be changed in order to cater for the genuine C licence holder, the man with his own van who travels in a radius of 5 miles carrying goods from door to door. We are not referring to such people when we discuss the future of the transport industry. The Ministry has not a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out a proper inspection. It is an overworked Department and there should be more inspectors.
We do not intend to oppose this Order, but I have grievous doubts about the situation. I had hoped that the Minister would continue the present practice as an experiment. When we on this side of the House come to power, which, I think, will be in about two months' time, we shall look at this matter carefully, and, in consultation with the experts, we shall consider whether we can deal with the situation differently.

Mr. Galbraith: I thought that I should be able to agree entirely with all that was said by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), but I cannot agree


with his last remarks. He asked, very sensibly, why this should not continue as an experiment. The answer is that, unfortunately, the Statute does not allow us to do that. In the light of the evidence given by the licensing authorities, I think that a distinction could be brought.
When I was shaking my head in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman I was not referring to these vehicles. I think that the hon. Member thought that I was thinking that we were surprised that these vehicles drivers were exceeding the permitted hours and not properly maintaining their vehicles. I meant that this did not come as a surprise to us. We have had evidence. Obviously, we have not been able to catch all the offenders. The traffic examiners who are in close contact with what is going on in their areas may not be able to bowl out all the offenders, but they know that offences are being committed. The whole country is divided up into 12 areas. There is absolutely no evidence that the small vans under 16 cwt. working on a delivery

basis doing rounds with milk, vegetables and so on are abusing this provision.
The hon. Member said that no doubt was expressed in the debate, but I understood that doubt was expressed as to the wisdom of this provision, I believe the unions questioned at that time whether these relaxations should be made.

Mr. Mellish: The unions were consulted, were they?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, they were.
The hon. Member asked how many vehicles there were in this small class. In round figures, the number is about half a million. I hope that these further remarks may have settled any doubts the hon. Member may have and that the House will feel disposed to allow us to have the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Order 1964, dated 25th June 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

A2 ROAD (DARTFORD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: In raising the problems of traffic and road safety on the A2 at Dartford, I am conscious that it is the Minister's intention to bypass this stretch of road completely with the improved A2. This is one of his five major schemes. The road will be diverted from the present position throughout almost the whole of its passage through the Dartford constituency. This project appears to have fallen very much behind schedule. The whole of the 42 miles were to be completed by 1967, but except at Swanscombe there is little evidence that this work is being undertaken.
I want to ask, first, what progress the Minister hopes to make with the scheme, and particularly when he expects the diversion through Dartford will be completed. It is clear that even when the new A2 is finished there will still be a very serious situation. The interim problem is dangerous enough to justify immediate action. The danger has been aggravated by the opening earlier this year of the Dartford Tunnel. There are two contributory causes to this. In his Press hand-out in February, 1963, the Minister described the present A2 as seriously overloaded, having a bad accident record, and an annual traffic increase higher than average. Because of the tunnel traffic, there has been a serious deterioration, and at a survey in June this year it was found that 32,600 passenger car units per 16 hour day were using this road. It may well be that the figure on the stretch of road I am talking about is greater than that, because the survey was taken at Cobham and it may be that some vehicles disappear from the road before they get to Cobham at the point where the survey was taken.
For some years the district councils and Kent County Council have pleaded that the Minister should ensure an adequate south orbital road should be constructed in time for the tunnel opening to carry traffic away from the area and not to

complicate the already difficult problems which exist and have existed for some time. As far back as 1961 a delegation consisting of a number of hon. Members local to the area and of the district councils and Kent County Council waited on the Minister to ensure that the south orbital road would be constructed in time. Except for getting permission to draw a line on the map, that delegation got nowhere. The impression which some of us got was that the Minister was oblivious of the need for such a road at the time.
It seems obvious that if we build an expensive project such as the Thames Tunnel and neglect to provide communicating roads north and south, this is both shortsighted and a doubtful economy for which the Minister will have to pay dearly in future. On several occasions since that time I have warned the Minister about the consequences of his failure to provide such a south orbital road, and, unhappily, all our fears at that time are being realised and the confusion and danger grows steadily day by day.
The Minister must accept responsibility for this, and he must accept responsibility on another count. I have said that the traffic flow on that road before the construction of the tunnel was unusually high. Not only is all the additional traffic coming from the tunnel decanted directly on the A2, but the Minister has permitted the construction of a junction which must be at least 30 years behind the times. I also believe it to be an affront to all modern principles of traffic management. It is a 200 ft. roundabout with two slip roads leading on the north directly to the tunnel road, and when one comes up from the tunnel it is almost impossible to get a clear view of the traffic coming round the roundabout. This is because the motorist is coming up the slope and the roundabout is on a high level.
In addition, the motorist can proceed only east or west when he gets to the roundabout. If he wishes to turn right and to go east to London, he must cross the whole of the traffic flow coming from London and he must then filter, if he wishes to turn eastwards, into the natural flow of traffic on the other side of the roundabout. This violates every modern principle of traffic


management of ensuring that traffic entering a main road does so with the natural flow of traffic and not against it.
I believe that this expensive folly will have either to be scrapped or to be severely modified if we are to have traffic running smoothly and to avoid the danger which is building up there. I should like to know, therefore, what the Minister proposes to do about the roundabout and when he intends to provide the south orbital road which will take some of the traffic from the tunnel away south, where it wishes to go.
In the meantime, and until we get the diversion of the south orbital road, there is an urgent need for interim safety measures at several junctions within a mile on either side of the roundabout. Less than a mile away to the west we have the junction at Low-field Street with the A2, which I understand is the black spot in Kent, Kent's No. 1 danger point. Here we very urgently need railings. We need a much more complicated phasing of the traffic lights system to allow the traffic which is not going straight across the crossing to have time to get clear before the lights change against it. My own view is that eventually we shall need a flyover at this point.
At Green Street Green Road we have a pedestrian bridge, and we are grateful that recently we have had ramps put on the bridge. This provides a temporary measure until such time as a further instalment of the tunnel approach road is built and subways are provided, but the traffic congestion at the junction is most acute because of the awkward character of the junction, and it is not uncommon to see, six, eight or nine cars standing in the centre of the road waiting to turn right. If one wants to get on to the A2 from Green Street Green Road or Park Road, it is a dangerous exercise not to be undertaken without police assistance. I believe that the junction will have to be completely reconstructed or that traffic lights will need to be provided and carefully phased to allow a proper filter system for the traffic going in each of the three directions in which it can possibly go from any one exit.
To the east, and not much further than 100 yards from the roundabout, there is the junction between Princes

Avenue and the A2. This is the only vehicular access from a newly constructed estate which already has 1,200 houses on it. Cars wait like sitting ducks in the centre of the three-stream road, waiting to turn into Princes Avenue. Last August I was sitting in just such a position in my car when a heavy cable lorry crashed into the rear of my car and spun it round into the face of an on-coming eight-wheel paper lorry. The result was that my car was a complete write-off and I had a very narrow escape from death. Here again, only something which will interrupt the flow of traffic will provide safe passage for people either going into Princes Avenue or coming out of it. There is a long, straight stretch of road here and an incentive to motorists to speed.
About 200 yards to the east is a pedestrian exit from this estate, forming a natural crossing point for people going to the shops and bus stops in Watling Street. It is also a natural crossing for mothers with young children going at least twice a day to Brent School. It is now almost impossible to find shepherds to supervise these crossings, and it needs at least signs warning of children crossing; although eventually some form of bridge or subway will have to be provided. It is not good enough to say that these mothers with their children who are mainly aged five to seven, should have to leave the estate by exits further along the street, for this would add a half to three quarters of a mile to their journey—and considering the difficulties at the other crossings this might even add to the danger.
I will comment further on this question of children crossing the road because this problem is acute in other parts of my constituency. I am sure that this is a problem common to many hon. Members. On the A20 the situation is arising where it is impossible to get shepherds to supervise the crossings, even where there are panda crossings or other crossings on this busy road. It must also be remembered that it is stretching the resources of the police when they have to provide policemen to supervise these crossings. At three crossings—at West View, White Oak and Salisbury Avenue—there are about 1,000 children going to and from school each day, and although they are police


controlled there is an increasing danger and I hope that the matter will be looked into.
A further 200 yards to the east on the A2 is the junction with Gore Road which, because of the curve in the road and the high speed of traffic in both directions, is equally hazardous. To the east there are the Bean crossroads which, because of the danger there, were not long ago remodelled to minimise the danger, but anyone going across the Bean crossroads will see the very serious danger that exists because, as the road to the east dips quickly away from the crossing, it is impossible to see fast westbound traffic approaching the crossing. Surely something can be done to cure this danger spot?
These are the urgent problems to which solutions are required at once. It is not good enough to say that the diversion and the south orbital road will release pressure on this road, for this is a questionable proposition, although to some extent it will help. Local and area traffic will, however, increase in the next year or two at a considerable rate and, even with the new project, will leave a dangerous traffic problem indeed.
In any case, local people cannot hope for any relief from this traffic pressure for at least another two or three years; that is, if the Minister is able to keep to his time-table, which is doubtful. Therefore, I submit that there is a desperate need and a dangerous situation, and I beg the Minister to say tonight that the Government realise the urgency of the problem, that a review will be put in hand at once and that some relief from these danger spots I have outlined will be forthcoming.

10.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The subject we are discussing tonight involves one of the major trunk roads in the country which goes through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman has been very industrious in bringing his constituents' interest in this road to our notice, has asked a great many Questions and written many letters, and tonight he has expressed, once more, his concern at the traffic situation.
I am glad that he has raised this matter tonight, because it gives me an

opportunity to review the whole position and to tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituents how my right hon. Friend is progressing with his plans. It is a little over five years since the hon. Member asked the then Minister what proposals he had for alterations, diversions and improvements to the A2. He was told, in reply, that dual carriageways would be provided from the L.C.C. boundary at Woolwich to the start of the Medway Motorway; that is, the M2. At that time the Minister could not forecast when construction works were likely to start.
Since then, I am glad to say, enormous strides have been taken, and only three months ago my right hon. Friend was able to inform the hon. Member that work on the diversion of the A2 at Dart-ford is expected to start in the autumn of 1965. Work on the eastern section, between the proposed Dartford diversion and the western end of the Medway Motorway, has already started.
Traffic between London and the Kentish coastal resorts and the Channel ports is served by two trunk roads—the A2 and the A20. My right hon. Friend's planning had to take into account that when the Maidstone bypass was opened the A20 would take more than its normal share of traffic; equally, when the Medway Motorway was opened a great deal of traffic would be attracted back to the A2. My right hon. Friend, taking these factors into account, announced that major improvement of the A2 from the L.C.C. boundary eastward to the Medway Motorway would have high priority in his 5-year trunk road programme.
The total length of A2 to be improved is 16¼ miles. Over the greater part of this, the present road has only a single carriageway 30 feet or 40 feet wide. My right hon. Friend's proposals for major improvements are for an all-purpose road to be constructed to the highest modern standards with adequate sightlines and, in general, with grade-separated junctions. The proposed layout will provide dual 36 feet wide carriageways separated by an unbroken central reservation 10 feet wide in Bexley and at least 15 feet wide elsewhere. The volumes of traffic to be expected on the improved road require three traffic lanes in each direction throughout this length. The total estimated cost of this major improvement is about £13 million—something very big indeed.
As I have said, work has already started on the eastern section and should be completed in less than two years from now, while my right hon. Friend hopes to start the building of the Dartford diversion in the autumn of next year. As part of that contract, there will be included the construction of the south orbital road from the present A2 to the diversion. My right hon. Friend is well aware that the south orbital road is a very important project which should be started at the earliest possible moment.
Quite a lot of progress has been made in planning the south orbital road since my right hon. Friend received the delegation to which the hon. Member has referred. My right hon. Friend has already published the proposed route from the Dartford Tunnel to the A20 trunk road, and he will publish further Orders under the Highways Act, 1959, for further sections of the road as soon as the preparatory work has been completed. So I really do not think that it was quite fair for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend was not interested in this project. He has, in fact, been as active as it is possible for him to be.
In its entirety, however, the south orbital road is a very expensive project, and it would not be feasible to build it at one go, because it stretches from the Dartford Tunnel in a semi-circle round to the Thames at Staines—quite a distance. So it will have to be built in sections, taking the most urgent parts first, and the hon. Member will be glad to know that, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, the most urgent section in Kent after the part between the present A2 and the Dartford diversion will be its continuation to the A20. He plans to be able to start building this in the next extension of the trunk road programme.
All these road schemes will make a major contribution to improving the general traffic conditions in the area, and I hope that what I have said shows the hon. Gentleman that there are not any unavoidable delays.
After those general remarks, I should like to deal with some of the detailed problems which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which exist in the meantime. The first matter to which he

referred was the roundabout, which he described as being of out-of-date design for the junction of the Tunnel Approach Road with the A2. He has complained that the motorist has to cross the whole flow of traffic from London going towards the Medway Towns before he can join other traffic approaching from the east going towards London. He has also said that drivers leaving the Tunnel Approach Road have inadequate vision of other vehicles in the roundabout. As to the first point, concerning design, the hon. Gentleman should remember that what he sees today at the roundabout is only a part of the final layout at this junction.
Furthermore, the main interchange between the traffic stream to which the hon. Member referred will in future take place not at this roundabout but at the junction of the south orbital road with the Dartford diversion. This will be a full-grade separated junction and will be built to the most modern standards as part of the Dartford diversion in a couple of years' time. The capacity of the roundabout will then be more than adequate for the volumes of traffic likely to use this interchange.
The other point which the hon. Member raised about the roundabout concerned the difficulties of vision. Although traffic leaving the tunnel is on an upgrade, as the hon. Member said, a level section has purposely been provided just before it joins the roundabout. The parapet here is only 3 ft. 6 ins. high and all but the very lowest of vehicles can see over it, and all drivers can actually see approaching vehicles through it. Apart from what the hon. Member said tonight, my right hon. Friend is not aware of any record of complaints about vision at the roundabout. The hon. Member may care to have another look at it in the light of what I have said.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the Lowfield Street junction, and he may have gone a little too far in saying that my right hon. Friend considered this to have the worst record in Kent. I should point out, for the sake of accuracy, that the figures which I gave the hon. Member last January in reply to his Question related only to the length of the A2 in his constituency. I am pleased to be able to tell him that


there has recently been a marked improvement in the accident record at this junction. During the first six months of this year there were two accidents there resulting in two cases of slight injury, compared with 16 accidents and 21 injuries during the previous twelve months, and 13 accidents and 16 injuries in 1962. Therefore, there has been an improvement. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has considered what further improvements can be made at this junction and he has arranged for the layout to be modified and the phasing of the signals to be adjusted to assist right-turning traffic. As the hon. Member has said, it is such traffic that has in the past been the main cause of accidents at this point.
The hon. Member referred to the problems of drivers at the Green Street Green—Park Road junction. I am glad that he referred also to the ramps for the footbridge which my right hon. Friend has provided, with the assistance of a contribution from Kent County Council to the cost of improving this footbridge for schoolchildren with bicycles and for mothers with prams. But to redesign the whole junction to solve the problem of turning traffic would be very expensive. My right hon. Friend considers that he would not be justified in diverting from other most urgent proposals even some of his funds to this improvement.
The reason for my right hon. Friend's reluctance is that the situation will be greatly improved when the amount of traffic on the main road, the A2, is reduced by the construction of the Dartford diversion. Similarly, the cost of a complicated system of traffic signals at this point could not be justified in view of the limited time during which it would be needed. There is the further objection that the signals would be very close to the roundabout, and that is an added disadvantage from the point of view of safety.
As to Princes Avenue. I was sorry to hear about the accident in which the hon. Member was involved last summer. I am glad to see that apparently it has had no effect upon his health. My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties here, mainly for right-turning vehicles and for pedestrians from the large housing estate nearby who want to cross the trunk

road. To deal with the traffic, my right hon. Friend's engineers have studied suggestions for islands to be sited in the main road. Unfortunately, they found that these would not prove satisfactory in this situation. Islands of about 15 ft. in width would be required and would have to extend over a considerable length to give adequate protection to turning traffic. Sufficient room for two lanes of traffic on either side on the trunk road would need to be maintained here and, unfortunately, there is no room for them. As the hon. Member knows, the junction is only about 130 yards from the roundabout and traffic signals within such a short distance as that would be unsatisfactory and perhaps potentially dangerous.
With regard to pedestrian problems, the hon. Member will appreciate that when the section of the south orbital road down to the Dartford diversion is constructed, the complete roundabout will include facilities for pedestrians crossing the trunk road.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a natural crossing point 200 yards east of Princes Avenue on Dovedale Road. It has no connection with the trunk road and there is, therefore, no problem for vehicles. But when the nearby estate was developed, an unclimbable fence was provided over a length of some 600 yards to stop indiscriminate crossing of the road, so the crossing to which the hon. Member has referred must be through an unauthorised gap in this fence. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend recognises the difficulties at Princes Avenue for drivers, and for pedestrians, whether they are authorised or not, at Dovedale Road, and he has instructed his engineers to re-examine the whole traffic pattern and the pedestrian problem on this stretch of the A2. He has asked them for their recommendations and he will then sympathetically consider, after consulting the local highway authorities, what alterations are possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Gore Road junction, and here conditions are complicated by the proximity on the north side of the junction of Watling Street with the trunk road. No complaints of conditions here have been made to my right hon. Friend, but I am bound to say that any modifications


would be quite extensive and would have to include the Watling Street junction. On the evidence at present available to my right hon. Friend, he considers that the cost would be unjustified in competition with other more immediately needed schemes.
Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the Bean Road crossroads, which was reconstructed by my right hon. Friend's agent authority, the Kent County Council, some two years ago. It is, of course, properly marked by double white lines. Suggestions have been received from local residents that a signal control might be provided, but my right hon. Friend's engineers have advised him that the volumes of turning traffic provide insufficient justification for signals, and anyway they would be on a straight road in open country which is a dangerous feature. Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the junction will be completely reconstructed as a roundabout forming part of the Dartford diversion in three years time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties of people, mainly school children, on another road. Up to now we have been dealing with the A2, and I would now like to turn to the A20, on which the hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties that children and old people may have in crossing the road at Swanley. There are three particular places where it has been suggested—I do not think the hon. Gentleman suggested it—that footbridges should be provided with ramps for the elderly, infirm and mothers with prams. This is a matter which has been raised with my right hon. Friend only a few days ago in a letter from the Swanley Parish Council following a letter dated 7th July that the council received from the north-west Kent division of the Kent Education Committee. So the hon. Gentleman has been very quick off the mark.
I should like to explain briefly what my right hon. Friend's general approach to this problem is. Footbridges are by no means the only solution, and sometimes they may be a quite unsatisfactory answer. It all depends on the particular circumstances of each case. If the use likely to be made justifies it, a subway

may be preferable even though in general it will be more expensive than a footbridge. My right hon. Friend's engineers estimate that ramped footbridges at Swanley would cost between £5,000 and £6,000 each. Another factor which has to be taken into account is the time factor. On present indications it would take many months before plans could be prepared in detail, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the bypass round Swanley would probably be in operation a year or so after that.
Now, a word about speed of construction, a subject on which the hon. Gentleman rather criticised my right hon. Friend. Unless unforeseen difficulties arise, I think that it would not be too optimistic to hope that the whole stretch of the A2 will be completed in the next four years.
I do not want to be outdone by the hon. Gentleman, who mentioned a great many roads, and, just to show that I, too, have done some homework, here are two which he did not mention-Shepherds Lane and Darenth Road. He will be interested to know that we are proposing to carry out modifications at these junctions as well. New controllers are to be provided and at Shepherds Lane improvements will be made to the layout of the junction.
Although this is, perhaps, not much consolation to the hon. Gentleman, what is happening in his constituency is happening in many other areas. It is part of the price which has to be paid for modernising our road system. While the transformation is being undertaken, the situation is, naturally, unpleasant, but I hope that I have shown that, so far as the road schemes are concerned, we are getting a move on. As regards the places which he mentioned, particularly Princes Avenue, Dovedale Road, Lowfield Street and the footbridges at Swanley, I hope I have convinced him that the re-examination of the traffic pattern in the area, including the needs of pedestrians, shows that my right hon. Friend is anxious to produce a solution which would be helpful not only to the hon. Gentleman but to his constituents as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.